The Official Scoop on D&D Copyright Issues
Melissa Tarkington
web site, I have watched the recent discussions regarding Wizards'
online policy with a great deal of interest. The statements that
implied that Wizards owns all material created by fans and posted to
the Internet were obviously of concern to us, and I didn't feel right
about accepting submissions from authors without getting all of the
facts. I recently wrote to Peter Adkison, the CEO of Wizards of the
Coast. I have his permission to forward his reply to the newsgroup.
Included below is my email to him, followed by his response.
============================================================
TO: le...@wizards.com
CC: ma...@wizards.com
Hello,
I am the submissions editor for a roleplaying games
portal that will be launching in May 2000. My
partners and I have read Wizards' online policy many
times, and we are certain that we will be able to
ensure that any D&D-related material posted on our
site will be 100% in compliance with it. That being
said, Ryan Dancey has made some comments on
rec.games.frp.dnd (and perhaps some other places as
well) that have given us cause for concern. He has
stated publicly that the company's position is that it
owns all D&D-related material that has been created by
fans and posted on the Internet. Is this really the
company's official position?
Whenever authors submit material to be considered for
posting on our site, they will click a button that
indicates that they have read our guidelines and that
they understand what it means to have their material
posted on our site. If Wizards' position is that it
owns this material because it has been posted to the
Internet, then I feel that I owe these authors the
courtesy of cautioning them about this before they
submit material to us, and I will modify our site's
submissions agreement accordingly.
Recently, I have seen some rather heated discussions
about Wizards' online policy on various e-lists and on
one newsgroup on the Internet. It would be greatly
appreciated (by a number of people, to be quite
honest) if this matter were cleared up, one way or
another. At this point, I believe that the only way
to effectively put this issue to rest in the online
RPG community would be for the legal department and/or
Mr. Adkison to make an official statement on the
matter. That's probably a lot to ask, but given the
discussions I've seen over the last few months, I
think it will take something along those lines to
truly set the record straight.
Sincerely,
Melissa J. Tarkington
============================================================
Dear Melissa,
First of all, thank you for caring enough about this topic to write
to us and get the information straight, firsthand.
Here's the scoop.
Anything that someone writes is theirs, to the extent it does
not infringe on something that is already owned by someone
else.
If someone writes an original story about a fantasy warrior
who treks across the wasteland destroying ogres and trolls
(public domain monsters that nobody owns), that story belongs
to the writer.
If the writer throws in a beholder (a monster that WotC
owns), then that story is no longer owned just by the writer;
this is because one of WotC's monsters is a part of it. However,
that story doesn't belong to WotC either. In effect, no
one can use the story without the other's consent.
By the way, just to make sure, I ran this answer past
Brian Lewis, our General Counsel (legal guy). So this
is an answer both from the CEO AND the legal
department. :-)
Feel free to pass this along to any of those discussion
forums where you think it might be helpful.
Stay on target,
Peter Adkison
CEO, Wizards of the Coast
Sector Head, Hobby Games, Hasbro
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
FoulFoot
> owns), then that story is no longer owned just by the writer;
> this is because one of WotC's monsters is a part of it. However,
> that story doesn't belong to WotC either. In effect, no
> one can use the story without the other's consent.
I guess then the better question (and maybe it's already been hashed out
here in detail) is, "what does WoTC own?" I assume when they say they own
"beholder", they're saying that the name "beholder" (as it applies to a
monster) is trademarked. Is there a listing of what terms they've
trademarked? Such terms as "hit point", "armor class", etc would be of
particular interest.
Regardless, I believe WoTC has also stated that they're not looking to
attack every Tom-Dick-and-Harry who's innocently posting their module up for
public viewing. They are well aware -- and have publicly stated -- that the
rabid attitude of the old TSR was probably instrumental in creating such a
negative bias among fans. They really don't want to further alienate
anyone. However, they still need to make their legal copyrights known, lest
someone take unfair advantage of their property ("advantage" equating to
"selling for profit").
Let's all relax.
Scott
Bryan J. Maloney
But what if one writes a MODULE that refers to the GAME RULES for a
"Beholder"? Game Rules are not covered under copyright. I think THAT
matter has to be cleared up.
PS: "Beholder" is, as far as I know, not Trademarked by anyone, either.
Ryan S. Dancey
> If I were to post something under the D20 open source license,
> does WotC claim they would own the rights to it?
There is no such thing as the D20 open source license.
If you are referring to the Open Gaming License (see
www.opengamingfoundation.org for more information) the answer to your
question is "you own the copyright to the original material you contribute."
> Do they have the right to publish it at that point?
Under the terms of the OGL, yes.
> Can I make money off of such a derivative work?
You will not get a fee or a royalty if someone else publishes the work, but
if you choose to do so, you are welcome to charge whatever the market will
bear.
> Could they?
Yes.
Ryan
Eric Noah
Eric Noah
D&D 3E News
http://www.rpgplanet.com/dnd3e
Mark W Brehob
> Dear Melissa,
> First of all, thank you for caring enough about this topic to write
> to us and get the information straight, firsthand.
> Here's the scoop.
> Anything that someone writes is theirs, to the extent it does
> not infringe on something that is already owned by someone
> else.
> If someone writes an original story about a fantasy warrior
> who treks across the wasteland destroying ogres and trolls
> (public domain monsters that nobody owns), that story belongs
> to the writer.
> owns), then that story is no longer owned just by the writer;
> this is because one of WotC's monsters is a part of it. However,
> that story doesn't belong to WotC either. In effect, no
> one can use the story without the other's consent.
> Brian Lewis, our General Counsel (legal guy). So this
> is an answer both from the CEO AND the legal
> department. :-)
> Feel free to pass this along to any of those discussion
> forums where you think it might be helpful.
> Stay on target,
> Peter Adkison
> CEO, Wizards of the Coast
> Sector Head, Hobby Games, Hasbro
Wow, talk about a non-answer. Or at least one I don't understand. So lets
try again. If I were to post something under the D20 open source license,
does WotC claim they would own the rights to it? Do they have the right to
publish it at that point? Can I make money off of such a derivative work?
Could they?
That's 4 questions. Anyone know the answers? I'm guessing the answer is
"we don't know yet."
Ideally WotC would allow anyone to write an adventure with the D&D rules.
Rules, spells, etc. which are in publications by WotC could not be
reproduced. That is I could have a mage, level 2, with the spell magic
missile, as an NPC. But I could not explain how the spell works or how the
combat system worked, or anything of that nature. I would be able to
_sell_ the material. And heck, I'd have to state clearly in BIG font that
it is an unofficial D&D product and that WotC owns D&D, PHB, and what ever
else I refer to. WotC would be free to refer to my product in the same way
in theirs.
Now the above would introduce a real "free market" for D&D stuff. It seems
darn unlikely that WotC wants that kind of a competitive market. In fact it
is unclear that _I_ really want that market, the 3rd edition D&D books would
certainly go up in price so that WotC would make money somewhere. Unless
WotC could consistently come out with a better product than everyone else.
(Likely, but a bit scary for WotC)
So instead I would hope that WotC would allow such a module/expansion to be
published when money is not asked for. Further that WotC would not be able
to use the material in any form other than the complete and unaltered form
without permission. And lastly that WotC would not be allowed to sell the
material without permission. So they _could_ take my module and post it to
their website. But I would get credit for it. And they wouldn't be making
money off of my hard work while I got zero. (minus selling banner ads etc.)
That seems darn reasonable. It might open up issues about WotC stealing
other peoples ideas, but heck, if I write a story or module _today_ WotC has
to worry about that same issue.
My thoughts.
Mark
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.cps.msu.edu/~brehob ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~Mark Brehob: Ultimate Player, Gamer, Computer Geek~~~~~~~~~~
Eric Noah
Peter Adkison only addressed the issue of using WotC copyrighted material IN
GENERAL. Nowhere did he address the whole OGL or D20 system license
agreement. That's a completely separate issue.
All he's saying is if you write a story about Elminster from the Forgotten
Realms, you can't legally post it or publish it, and neither can WotC.
Eric Noah
"Mark W Brehob" <bre...@cse.msu.edu> wrote in message
news:8c3k6c$2c1k$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
andrew davies
lets
> try again. If I were to post something under the D20 open source license,
> does WotC claim they would own the rights to it? Do they have the right
to
> publish it at that point? Can I make money off of such a derivative work?
> Could they?
>
> "we don't know yet."
I think what he's saying is that the rights to making any profits out of the
information would be jointly held by both the original author, and by
TSR/WotC/Hasbro (sorry, I lose track on who owns what hehe).
If neither the original author, nor TSR/WotC/Hasbro wanted to make money
(i.e. they both got together and agreed a profit split/royalties payment)
from this, then either one could release it to the public domain. This is of
course assuming it got past the lawyers in the first place <G> ???
> Ideally WotC would allow anyone to write an adventure with the D&D rules.
> Rules, spells, etc. which are in publications by WotC could not be
> reproduced. That is I could have a mage, level 2, with the spell magic
> missile, as an NPC. But I could not explain how the spell works or how
the
> combat system worked, or anything of that nature. I would be able to
> _sell_ the material. And heck, I'd have to state clearly in BIG font that
> it is an unofficial D&D product and that WotC owns D&D, PHB, and what ever
> else I refer to. WotC would be free to refer to my product in the same
way
> in theirs.
Again, I thnk that writing one would be considered acceptable, as long as no
money was being made from their Intellectual Property, and it wasn't a copy
of an original TSR/WotC/Hasbro owned D&D Adventure ???
First off, they are a business, and the first aim of a business is normally
to make a profit. In this case this is done by either having created a
recognizable brand name, or buying one and then creating an environment to
sell it in. I for one would be annoyed if someone then used this loyalty in
the brand name to try and sell shoddy merchandise to the public, so i can
understand the fact that they would want to protect the name.
I don't know what in D&D is actually trademarked, in fact i would be
interested to know ( anyone from TSR/WotC/Hasbro out there ? <g> ). I would
echo back to the original comment saying joint ownership - implying that if
the print anything from a 3rd party source, that an equal share in the
profits would be the minimum restitution required ( i'm aware of the States
being a trigger happy country when it comes to lawyers hehe).
Let the flames commence, Asbestos Newsreader currently on order, hehe.
Andrew
jbs
>Wow, talk about a non-answer. Or at least one I don't understand. So lets
>try again. If I were to post something under the D20 open source license,
>does WotC claim they would own the rights to it? Do they have the right to
>publish it at that point? Can I make money off of such a derivative work?
>Could they?
>
>That's 4 questions. Anyone know the answers? I'm guessing the answer is
>"we don't know yet."
>
>Ideally WotC would allow anyone to write an adventure with the D&D rules.
>Rules, spells, etc. which are in publications by WotC could not be
>reproduced. That is I could have a mage, level 2, with the spell magic
>missile, as an NPC. But I could not explain how the spell works or how the
>combat system worked, or anything of that nature. I would be able to
>_sell_ the material. And heck, I'd have to state clearly in BIG font that
>it is an unofficial D&D product and that WotC owns D&D, PHB, and what ever
>else I refer to. WotC would be free to refer to my product in the same way
>in theirs.
>
>Now the above would introduce a real "free market" for D&D stuff. It seems
>darn unlikely that WotC wants that kind of a competitive market.
But that's the point. If you don't explain how the spells work or the
combat system works it's not competitive. People buying your book
still have to buy a 3E DND PHB to get the full benefit. That's in
WotC best interests *and* yours.
>In fact it
>is unclear that _I_ really want that market, the 3rd edition D&D books would
>certainly go up in price so that WotC would make money somewhere. Unless
>WotC could consistently come out with a better product than everyone else.
>(Likely, but a bit scary for WotC)
No. The point of OSG is to help WotC sell more PHB. The more they
sell the less likely they are to raise the prices.
>So instead I would hope that WotC would allow such a module/expansion to be
>published when money is not asked for. Further that WotC would not be able
>to use the material in any form other than the complete and unaltered form
>without permission. And lastly that WotC would not be allowed to sell the
>material without permission. So they _could_ take my module and post it to
>their website. But I would get credit for it. And they wouldn't be making
>money off of my hard work while I got zero. (minus selling banner ads etc.)
If it's your work then they couldn't steal it from you like you're
worried about. They'd face the same problems you'd face if you stole
their work.
>That seems darn reasonable. It might open up issues about WotC stealing
>other peoples ideas, but heck, if I write a story or module _today_ WotC has
>to worry about that same issue.
>
>My thoughts.
>
>Mark
jbs
Sheitan
> > If the writer throws in a beholder (a monster that WotC
> > owns), then that story is no longer owned just by the writer;
> > this is because one of WotC's monsters is a part of it. However,
> > that story doesn't belong to WotC either. In effect, no
> > one can use the story without the other's consent.
>
> here in detail) is, "what does WoTC own?" I assume when they say they own
> "beholder", they're saying that the name "beholder" (as it applies to a
> monster) is trademarked. Is there a listing of what terms they've
> trademarked? Such terms as "hit point", "armor class", etc would be of
> particular interest.
Hmm.... so do we have to start using "hit ports" and "armour class" in all
our modules? I'm sure we could make a long list of non-trademarked
substitutes.....
"Dracolurch"
"Illithilid"
"Behorder"
"Bazatu"
"Taneri"
etc. etc.
> Regardless, I believe WoTC has also stated that they're not looking to
> attack every Tom-Dick-and-Harry who's innocently posting their module up
for
> public viewing. They are well aware -- and have publicly stated -- that
the
> rabid attitude of the old TSR was probably instrumental in creating such a
> negative bias among fans. They really don't want to further alienate
> anyone. However, they still need to make their legal copyrights known,
lest
> someone take unfair advantage of their property ("advantage" equating to
> "selling for profit").
>
> Let's all relax.
Yah, I agree that they're most likely doing this for legal reasons in case
it matters later rather than with a deliberate attempt to try and steal
people's work.
- Sheitan
Randolpho The Great
Melissa Tarkington wrote:
<snip for brevity>
Ok, here's my big poser:
Why does WotC claim the rights to a beholder? Does WotC claim the rights
to all of their generic monster/race names? Like Elves, Orce, Ogres,
Goblins, Demons, Balrogs, and the like? That goes a bit far, doesn't it?
I guess I could understand a few specific monsters (such as the beholder
;p), but *all* the monsters?
--
Randolpho
Attend OmniCon, March 25, 2000!
http://users.multipro.com/honna/Omnicon.html
Questions about OmniCon? Email them to frs...@tntech.edu
Randolpho The Great
Steven Jones
from ancient mythology and was the origin of the expression 'beauty is in
the eye of the beholder'. Can anyone clear this up?
Jerry Stratton
<eric...@home.com> wrote:
>Let's make sure we're talking about the same thing...
>
>Peter Adkison only addressed the issue of using WotC copyrighted material
>IN
>GENERAL. Nowhere did he address the whole OGL or D20 system license
>agreement. That's a completely separate issue.
Well, neither the poster's question to Peter nor the current subject
mention OGL/D20. I suspect the poster was worried about actual D&D
modules and such, which Ryan seems to be saying are illegal under his
opinion. That's a separate discussion which has been going on in the
rec.games.frp.misc newsgroup, among others. My opinion is that he's
wrong. I replied to his latest claim by posting a commercial module for
D&D. It wasn't a *good* module, but that's beside the point legally :*)
>All he's saying is if you write a story about Elminster from the Forgotten
>Realms, you can't legally post it or publish it, and neither can WotC.
And it may not even have been answering the question the original poster
wanted answered, which related to "D&D material". It's one thing to
write a story which includes a creature called a 'beholder' that looks
like a D&D beholder (assuming for the moment that beholders were made up
for D&D), and another thing entirely to write an adventure which
includes the note that a beholder exists here and gives game stats on
the creature. One is a character from a work of fiction, the other is a
piece of game rules.
The former might or might not be legal, depending on the circumstance.
The latter definitely is legal, (as long as it doesn't look like you're
claiming to be WOTC or are approved by WOTC when this is not true).
Staffan Johansson
The expression "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" refers to the fact
that beauty is a subjective thing - what one person considers beautiful
may not be considered so by a second person. In other words, the concept
"beauty" is inherent to the person beholding the potentially beautiful
object, not in the object itself.
The monster "beholder" (as in, a big ball with a big mouth, one big eye
and ten small ones) was AFAIK invented in D&D. I've seen ripoffs of it
in various computer games (Ultima and Doom comes to mind), but the D&D
beholder is the original.
--
Staffan Johansson (bal...@crosswinds.net)
http://www.crosswinds.net/~baloosj
"Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time."
-- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
Arivne
Melissa Tarkington wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> Dear Melissa,
> First of all, thank you for caring enough about this topic to write
> to us and get the information straight, firsthand.
> Here's the scoop.
> Anything that someone writes is theirs, to the extent it does
> not infringe on something that is already owned by someone
> else.
> If someone writes an original story about a fantasy warrior
> who treks across the wasteland destroying ogres and trolls
> (public domain monsters that nobody owns), that story belongs
> to the writer.
> If the writer throws in a beholder (a monster that WotC
> owns), then that story is no longer owned just by the writer;
> this is because one of WotC's monsters is a part of it. However,
> that story doesn't belong to WotC either. In effect, no
> one can use the story without the other's consent.
> By the way, just to make sure, I ran this answer past
> Brian Lewis, our General Counsel (legal guy). So this
> is an answer both from the CEO AND the legal
> department. :-)
> Feel free to pass this along to any of those discussion
> forums where you think it might be helpful.
> Stay on target,
> Peter Adkison
> CEO, Wizards of the Coast
> Sector Head, Hobby Games, Hasbro
If I understand this correctly, Mr. Adkison is saying that any writing
which contains any word claimed by WotC is partially owned by WotC, and
the writer must get WotC's permission to use it.
"Use" presumably includes publishing for profit (and I agree with that).
However: what else does "use" mean? Posting to Usenet? Putting it on a
web site? Being sent via email?
Does the restriction apply to original materials posted to this NG, such
as house rules, campaign information, and so on, which happen to include
a WotC-owned word?
Perhaps Mr. Adkison would like to clarify what he meant by "use", and to
what materials it applies?
Arivne
Eric Noah
copy, distribute, perform, display in public, or create derivative works
from the material. So you can WRITE all the Beholder stories you want, you
just can't publish, post on a bulletin board in a library, put on your web
page, and so forth. You could probably send copies to friends and family,
but a mass e-mailing to a discussion group or something would fall outside
of fair use.
Eric
http://www.waunakee.k12.wi.us/midlschl/copyright.htm
"Arivne" <ari...@home.com> wrote in message
news:38E60593...@home.com...
Eric Noah
I described here. Their policy ( at
http://www.wizards.com/contactinfo/TSR_Online_Policy.asp ) indicates that
they are mostly interested in keeping you from publishing/posting large
chunks of their copyrighted text. They specifically indicate that you can
make and post your own adventures and other material as long as you keep
them original. They even say they don't really mind if you use a couple of
their pieces of copyrighted artwork. So they have a bunch of rights that
they're chosing to not exercise because it's good PR, too hard to monitor,
or whatever other reason you care to think of, plus they are acknowledging
that the game is intended to be used to create derivative work as long as
it's original and for non-profit type web sites that are just for fun.
However, blending Peter's comments in would also indicate that even with
their implicit permission from the Online Policy, you still aren't the "sole
owner" of works you derive from other copyrighted works. Neither is WotC.
That's all he was saying -- they can't publish your derivative work but they
might possibly have legal ground to to keep you from publishing it (if it
somehow made WotC look bad -- contained lots of profantiy or other
situations like that).
Finally, you can't copyright single words or brief phrases. Those can be
trademarked, though. So Dungeon Master is a trademarked term. I don't
believe any of the "game lingo" is trademarked -- hit points, armor class,
saving throw, and so forth. And the Online Policy specifically says you can
use their "word trademarks" on your non-profit web pages.
Eric
"Eric Noah" <eric...@home.com> wrote in message
news:lRnF4.14026$Y4.3...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com...
The Wraith
wrote:
>I didn't know that WOTC owns the creature, 'beholder'. I assumed it was
>from ancient mythology and was the origin of the expression 'beauty is in
>the eye of the beholder'. Can anyone clear this up?
The beholder, as in the monster in the MM, is a creature invented
wholesale for (A)D&D. It is not out of any mythology.
As for the old saying, a beholder is one who beholds, which is to say,
a person who sees something. In other words, the perception of beauty
depends on the viewer. It has nothing to do with mythology.
--
Now, by popular demand, a new .sig!
I still can't think of anything witty to say, though.
The Wraith
The Wraith
<randolph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Why does WotC claim the rights to a beholder?
Probably because they made it up - as in completely and utterly,
straight out of someone's head - or, rather, someone at TSR did and
WotC now owns everything that TSR owned when it was taken over.
>Does WotC claim the rights
>to all of their generic monster/race names? Like Elves, Orce, Ogres,
>Goblins, Demons, Balrogs, and the like?
I rather doubt it. For the truly generic ones, they could well claim
copywrite on their specific write-ups of the creatures, but they
obviously wouldn't be able to copyright the names (since you can't
copyright individual words or short phrases), nor could they get any
sort of trademark they could enforce (since the terms are out of
common mythology and fiction and have been in general use since long
before TSR even existed, and thus any court would toss the case out on
its ear).
For the Balrog, I doubt they would try to claim much at all. It's not
worth getting sued by the Tolkien estate. (Tolkien invented Balrogs.)
Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds
Mark W Brehob wrote:
> Wow, talk about a non-answer. Or at least one I don't understand. So lets
> try again. If I were to post something under the D20 open source license,
> does WotC claim they would own the rights to it? Do they have the right to
> publish it at that point? Can I make money off of such a derivative work?
> Could they?
He's not talking about the D20 license. He's talking about right now,
fan material, written posted on the net. D20 and OGL is a totally
separate issue.
Again: Peter's comments have nothing to do with the D20 system or the
Open Gaming License. Issues for those who concepts have not been worked
out yet because the licenses aren't _done_.
--
Sean K Reynolds - game designer, computer artist, web guy, bigmouth
http://www.seankreynolds.com
Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds
Randolpho The Great wrote:
> Why does WotC claim the rights to a beholder? Does WotC claim the rights
> to all of their generic monster/race names? Like Elves, Orce, Ogres,
> Goblins, Demons, Balrogs, and the like? That goes a bit far, doesn't it?
> I guess I could understand a few specific monsters (such as the beholder
> ;p), but *all* the monsters?
Except for specific expressions of "classic monsters" (for example, the
specific D&D culture, favored weapons, and alignment tendencies common
to D&D elves), those "classic monsters" are not owned by anybody. Anyone
could make a book or a game or a movie about elves, but if they were D&D
elves, they would be violating Wizards' copyright (note that Wizards
currently lets you create your own non-profit stories and adventures
using D&D elves).
A beholder, however, is a unique D&D creation and Wizards owns it
entirely. You could make a new creature that is called a beholder, but
if it resembled the D&D beholder you'd be standing on very shaky ground.
Oh, and there are no balrogs in D&D (there may be things that look and
act like balrogs, but there's no creature with that name).
Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds
Jerry Stratton wrote:
> And it may not even have been answering the question the original poster
> wanted answered, which related to "D&D material". It's one thing to
> write a story which includes a creature called a 'beholder' that looks
> like a D&D beholder (assuming for the moment that beholders were made up
> for D&D), and another thing entirely to write an adventure which
> includes the note that a beholder exists here and gives game stats on
> the creature. One is a character from a work of fiction, the other is a
> piece of game rules.
> The former might or might not be legal, depending on the circumstance.
> The latter definitely is legal, (as long as it doesn't look like you're
> claiming to be WOTC or are approved by WOTC when this is not true).
Using a D&D beholder in a story or a game product (it makes no
difference which) without Wizards' permission is a copyright violation.
The current online policy gives you permission to do so as long as
you're not trying to make money with it.
Jerry Stratton
"news"@@@seankreynolds.com wrote:
>Jerry Stratton wrote:
>> The former might or might not be legal, depending on the circumstance.
>> The latter definitely is legal, (as long as it doesn't look like you're
>> claiming to be WOTC or are approved by WOTC when this is not true).
>
>Using a D&D beholder in a story or a game product (it makes no
>difference which) without Wizards' permission is a copyright violation.
>The current online policy gives you permission to do so as long as
>you're not trying to make money with it.
It makes a huge difference, because using the rules for beholder is not
a copyright violation. You cannot copyright rules. Here is a
modification of my adventure, "The Empty Well". I am attempting to make
money with it. I do not need your permission. (See
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=604363147 for the original posting.)
The Empty Well
by Jerry Stratton
This is an adventure that can be used with Advanced Dungeons and
Dragons, 1st edition, and probably others as well. Neither Jerry
Stratton nor "The Empty Well" are affiliated with the makers of Advanced
Dungeons and Dragons, which is currently owned by Wizards of the Coast.
"The Empty Well" is Copyright 2000 Jerry Stratton, and is distributed as
shareware. Please send $0.02 if you use this adventure. You may, of
course, send more, and I would like it very much. I am trying to make as
much money as I can from this adventure.
Map of the Wilderness surrounding the well
-------
| |
|barn |
| |
-------
--
< > <-- well
--
Map Key:
Barn:
The barn used to hold bulls, but now holds only bullshit and one
minotaur. The minotaur will attack on sight, but otherwise sits around
all day reading "Gord the Rogue" novels. (If any character is wearing
"Gord the Rogue" t-shirt or other licensing material, the minotaur will
attempt to strike up a conversation during battle.)
Minotaur: AC 6, MV 12, HD: 6+3, hp 27, A 2, D: 2-8/1-4, Align: CE.
Languages: Minotaur, the common tongue. The minotaur has no treasure,
unless you're a Gord fan. He has the whole set. Also, if you're a
farmer, there's a whole bunch of bullshit here. Bring a portable hole.
In the attic of the barn is a beholder. It hates Gord the Rogue and
reads nothing but Tracy Hickman and Margaret Weis. The attic is covered
with Dragonlance posters and books. The beholder has the entire
Dragonlance collection. The beholder will only attack if one or more of
the party make a denigrating reference about the Dragonlance series,
Tracy Hickman, or Margaret Weis. Beholder: AC 0/2/7, MV 3, HD: 10, hp
59, A 1, D: 2-8, Align: LE. Special attacks and defenses abound. See
your rulebook for details.
Well:
The well is empty. In the sense that there is no more water in the well.
At the bottom of the well is a city of Piraguatoi. Piraguatoi are tiny
faerie that love to cause mischief. Anyone disturbing the well is likely
to release a swarm of 3 to 60 of these flying trouble-makers, and there
is a 25% chance that the swarm will follow that character for the rest
of their natural born life.
Piraguatoi information:
Frequency: Never. Very common in stupid satirical modules.
No. Appearing: 1,000-10,000
Armor Class: -2
Move: 2/30
Hit Dice: 1/4 (1 hp)
% In Lair: 100% (unless attached to an individual)
Treasure Type: J, S
No. of Attacks: 1
Damage/Attack: 0
Special Attacks: On a successful hit by a Piraguatoi, characters must
save vs. Spells or jump up on the nearest soapbox and expound for 1-10
rounds.
Special Defenses: Nil
Magic Resistance: 50%
Intelligence: Average
Alignment: Chaotic Neutral
Size: T
Psionic Ability: Nil
Attack/Defense Modes: Nil
If you are using one of Wizard of the Coast's/TSR's official worlds, this
adventure might fit best somewhere in the lands of Glantri, the Bone
March,
just outside of the city of Waterdeep, or within the wards of Ypsilanti.
All it really needs is an area of the world where people dig wells where
there is no water, build old barns full of crap, and go on forever about
things they don't know anything about.
http://www.hoboes.com/jerry/
Deirdre M. Brooks
Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds wrote:
>
> Oh, and there are no balrogs in D&D (there may be things that look and
> act like balrogs, but there's no creature with that name).
Not since the Type VI Demons were renamed. :-)
--
Deird'Re M. Brooks | xe...@teleport.com | cam#9309026
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
"If you loved me, you'd all kill yourselves today."
-- Spider Jerusalem | http://www.teleport.com/~xenya
Allister Huggins
>
> The Wraith <wra...@powerup.com.au> wrote:
> % The beholder, as in the monster in the MM, is a creature invented
> % wholesale for (A)D&D. It is not out of any mythology.
>
> Well, the name "Beholder" for "floating eye creature" is unique to D&D. I'm
> pretty sure I've read stories with similar creatures which are too early to
> be influenced by D&D.
Not likely. Beholder is one of the few original monsters that TSR
designed for the 1E Monster Manual. Everything else was taken from
pre-existing sources, or so I've been told.
Allister H.
R. Serena Wakefield
wrote:
>I didn't know that WOTC owns the creature, 'beholder'. I assumed it was
>from ancient mythology and was the origin of the expression 'beauty is in
>the eye of the beholder'. Can anyone clear this up?
In that expression, "beholder" simply means "one who beholds," as in,
beauty is in the eye of whoever is looking at it.
The big ball-shaped creatures with eyestalks and one big central eye
are wholly, 100%, unequivocally a creation of TSR, Inc.
--
R. Serena Wakefield
Visit Serena's Gaming Dojo at http://welcome.to/serenasdojo
RANDOMLY GENERATED THOUGHT FOR THE DAY:
If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, and quacks like a
duck it is probably just a tool of the conspiracy.
Staffan Johansson
>
> Err. the Balrogs were in OD&D - called Roaring Demons I believe.
> And halflings continue to exist.
But the point is that they aren't Balrogs and Hobbits, because those
creatures are owned by the Tolkien estate.
Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds
Jerry Stratton wrote:
> It makes a huge difference, because using the rules for beholder is not
> a copyright violation.
It makes absolutely no difference, because Wizards owns beholders just
like how LucasFilm owns wookies. Whether you put them in a story, an
illustration, or an adventure, it is a copyright violation.
Wizards' current policy, however, gives you permission to do certain
things that the law does not explicitly allow.
Your adventure, by the way, does not necessarily use Wizards' beholder,
because there's nothing to indicate it its Wizards' creature other than
the name.
The Wraith
>I can hear you, Nate Edel, can you hear me?
>>The word "Balrog", AFAICT, is an invention of Tolkien's, and like
>>"Hobbit", is property of the Tolkien Estate, although Balrog-like
>>demons and Hobbit-life halflings are present in earlier works. Hence
>>their removal from oD&D, and the presence of type-6 "balor" demons and
>>halflings in first edition.
>
>Err. the Balrogs were in OD&D - called Roaring Demons I believe.
>And halflings continue to exist.
Yup, and IIRC, TSR got in trouble for their use of the term "Balrog"
at one stage. And for the use of the term "hobbit" in the original
rules.
The terms "halfling", "Balor" and "Roaring Demon" were later
inventions.
Jerry Stratton
>Your adventure, by the way, does not necessarily use Wizards' beholder,
>because there's nothing to indicate it its Wizards' creature other than
>the name.
And the reference to the rules. And the alignment, hit points, number of
attacks, damage per attack... even without those, however, anyone who
has any knowledge of D&D will know, on reading that adventure, that this
is the D&D beholder.
If you're saying that "The Empty Well" is legal because the "beholder"
mentioned there isn't specifically the D&D beholder, when it obviously
*is* the D&D beholder, then I'm not sure how your position differs from
mine. Obviously, you believe that the beholder *can* be used in an
adventure legally, since I did, everyone knows that's the D&D beholder,
and you're saying that's not an illegal use of it.
Just to make sure that we're talking about the same thing, what extra
would I have had to do, to illegally use the beholder, as opposed to
legally use the beholder as I did? (This isn't to say I'm going to
rewrite the adventure to infringe: as far as I'm concerned, I've made my
point. Obviously, you believe that the beholder can be used in
adventures. I think we're only quibbling about what "used" means now.)
Aardy R. DeVarque
>Melissa Tarkington wrote:
>>
><snip>
>> [quoting a letter from Peter Adkison]
>> Here's the scoop.
>> Anything that someone writes is theirs, to the extent it does
>> not infringe on something that is already owned by someone
>> else.
>> If someone writes an original story about a fantasy warrior
>> who treks across the wasteland destroying ogres and trolls
>> (public domain monsters that nobody owns), that story belongs
>> to the writer.
>> If the writer throws in a beholder (a monster that WotC
>> owns), then that story is no longer owned just by the writer;
>> this is because one of WotC's monsters is a part of it. However,
>> that story doesn't belong to WotC either. In effect, no
>> one can use the story without the other's consent.
>
>which contains any word claimed by WotC is partially owned by WotC, and
>the writer must get WotC's permission to use it.
Not "any [single] word" so much as direct quotes & also identifiable
"characters" (including fictional locations). This is generally in
accordance with U.S. copyright law & the Berne Convention, at least as far
as fiction and fictional characters go. (The only real quibbling point
being how much protection a particular "character" can have, or a fictional
species or a fictional world, insofar as no actual *quoting* is involved.
Character copyright is even murkier than Fair Use, but WotC's position on
this is a logical one, though not the only one.)
If I write a sequel to Stephen King's "Eyes of the Dragon", using the same
fictional world and some of the same characters, I legally cannot publish it
without SK's permission because my novel is a "derivative work" of SK's
novel. Likewise, *he* can't take that story and publish it without *my*
permission. The same holds true for D&D stuff along these lines. (Also,
the only reason I can legally write the sequel in the first place is that
once I purchase a copy of his novel, I have the right to do whatever I want
to with it for my own use--read it, photocopy it, cut it up and make a
collage out of it, whatever I want. But all of that must remain with me,
and if I sell/give away any of it, I have to sell/give away *all* of it to
the same person.)
Game supplements are a little trickier. If a specific TSR-published game
world is involved, then see above. Otherwise, the conservative position
(which WotC follows) is that adventures & sourcebooks written explicitly for
use with D&D (that is, actually using the D&D rules, such as for monster
writeups, mages' spell lists, etc.) count as "derivative works." The
liberal position (held by many gamers) is that, since rule systems can't be
copyrighted (only the actual text used to describe them), that adventures &
sourcebooks don't automatically count as *legally* "derivative," even though
they are obviously "derivative" in the everyday sense of that word.
>"Use" presumably includes publishing for profit (and I agree with that).
>
>However: what else does "use" mean? Posting to Usenet? Putting it on a
>web site? Being sent via email?
Any sort of distribution beyond yourself, other than being used by yourself
in a D&D game you are part of. Posting to Usenet, putting on a web page,
e-mailing all count. So does printing it out and selling it at conventions.
>Does the restriction apply to original materials posted to this NG, such
>as house rules, campaign information, and so on, which happen to include
>a WotC-owned word?
The concept isn't of "WotC-owned words", but rather WotC-owned copyrighted
material, including "character" copyright over monsters (that is, including
a "beholder" that is a large floating sphere with a central eye and many
eyestalks; you *can* inlcude a "beholder" that is a 10' tall humanoid with a
single eye, or a "beholder" that is a cthuloid alien that causes anyone who
looks at it to go insane, etc. all you want, though) and over elements of
fictional worlds (similar to wanting to publish your own Middle Earth
novel).
>Perhaps Mr. Adkison would like to clarify what he meant by "use", and to
>what materials it applies?
"use" (as used in the quote above): qv. "publish", "distribute" or otherwise
spread copies around *outside* of the realms of "for your own, personal use"
and "used inside a campaign you DM or play in" (as those two are allowed by
law and due to the very nature of the game).
All that said, however, if you read WotC's copyright usage page (under
Corporate Info, IIRC), they've already given everyone all the permissions we
need to create fan webpages, share adventures, house rules, whatever,
without WotC sticking their nose in and trying to shut people down (nor
trying to steal our material and publish it as their own)--as long as it's
non-profit and doesn't include lots of quoted material/copied pictures from
the "official" D&D books.
All this, *before* the arrival of the Open Gaming License (which could allow
for *for-profit* ventures).
James Robinson
<ed...@best.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
> FoulFoot <acaeum.com@webmaster> wrote:
> % here in detail) is, "what does WoTC own?" I assume when they say they own
> % "beholder", they're saying that the name "beholder" (as it applies to a
> % monster) is trademarked. Is there a listing of what terms they've
> % trademarked? Such terms as "hit point", "armor class", etc would be of
> % particular interest.
>
> Actually, would a beholder count as a trademark, or would that come under
> the *copyright* restrictions on using another author's distinctive
> characters and setting?
My vote is for distinctive character. They *might* claim trademark
on the name - I remember seeing something to the effect that they
claimed trademark on every single spell and name in the books, but that
memory is from the Bad Old Days, and the current administration might
well have left it behind with Rob Repp.
You can't copyright (or trademark) game mechanics, only a particular
expression of them, so that's not a concern.
--
James
http://avalon.net/~amorph
James Robinson
<bre...@cse.msu.edu> wrote:
> Melissa Tarkington <melira_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Dear Melissa,
> > First of all, thank you for caring enough about this topic to write
> > to us and get the information straight, firsthand.
> > Here's the scoop.
> > Anything that someone writes is theirs, to the extent it does
> > not infringe on something that is already owned by someone
> > else.
> > If someone writes an original story about a fantasy warrior
> > who treks across the wasteland destroying ogres and trolls
> > (public domain monsters that nobody owns), that story belongs
> > to the writer.
> > If the writer throws in a beholder (a monster that WotC
> > owns), then that story is no longer owned just by the writer;
> > this is because one of WotC's monsters is a part of it. However,
> > that story doesn't belong to WotC either. In effect, no
> > one can use the story without the other's consent.
> > By the way, just to make sure, I ran this answer past
> > Brian Lewis, our General Counsel (legal guy). So this
> > is an answer both from the CEO AND the legal
> > department. :-)
> > Feel free to pass this along to any of those discussion
> > forums where you think it might be helpful.
> > Stay on target,
> > Peter Adkison
> > CEO, Wizards of the Coast
> > Sector Head, Hobby Games, Hasbro
>
> Wow, talk about a non-answer. Or at least one I don't understand. So lets
> try again. If I were to post something under the D20 open source license,
> does WotC claim they would own the rights to it? Do they have the right to
> publish it at that point? Can I make money off of such a derivative work?
> Could they?
The D20 license - and for that matter, any license - is outside the
scope of this discussion.
Peter's restating copyright law as regards derivative works; that's
all. The sad thing is that it's heartening just to see him restating
it correctly.
> That's 4 questions. Anyone know the answers? I'm guessing the answer is
> "we don't know yet."
It would depend on the wording of the license.
--
James
http://avalon.net/~amorph
James Robinson
<amd...@lineone.net> wrote:
> Mark W Brehob <bre...@cse.msu.edu> wrote in message
> news:8c3k6c$2c1k$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
> > Melissa Tarkington <melira_...@yahoo.com> quoted Peter Adkinson:
> > > If someone writes an original story about a fantasy warrior
> > > who treks across the wasteland destroying ogres and trolls
> > > (public domain monsters that nobody owns), that story belongs
> > > to the writer.
> > > If the writer throws in a beholder (a monster that WotC
> > > owns), then that story is no longer owned just by the writer;
> > > this is because one of WotC's monsters is a part of it. However,
> > > that story doesn't belong to WotC either. In effect, no
> > > one can use the story without the other's consent.
> >
> > Wow, talk about a non-answer. Or at least one I don't understand. So
> > lets try again. If I were to post something under the D20 open source
> > license, does WotC claim they would own the rights to it? Do they have
> > the right to publish it at that point? Can I make money off of such a
> > derivative work?
> > Could they?
> >
> > That's 4 questions. Anyone know the answers? I'm guessing the answer is
> > "we don't know yet."
>
> I think what he's saying is that the rights to making any profits out of the
> information would be jointly held by both the original author, and by
> TSR/WotC/Hasbro (sorry, I lose track on who owns what hehe).
More correctly, the rights to *publish* the works would be held both
by the author and by WotC; copyright law is only concerned with profit
insofar as it affects how much you can sue for. An infringement is an
infringement whether it's distributed freely or sold at an extravagant
rate.
> If neither the original author, nor TSR/WotC/Hasbro wanted to make money
> (i.e. they both got together and agreed a profit split/royalties payment)
> from this, then either one could release it to the public domain. This is of
> course assuming it got past the lawyers in the first place <G> ???
No.
"Public domain" has a very specific meaning: It means that *no-one*
owns *any* rights to the work whatsoever. Both WotC and the author
would have to agree to place the above-mentioned story in the public
domain, because that would nullify both parties' rights to the work.
If WotC and the author couldn't come to an agreement, the story
couldn't be published. Anywhere. At any price. That's all there is
to it.
> Again, I thnk that writing one would be considered acceptable, as long as no
> money was being made from their Intellectual Property, and it wasn't a copy
> of an original TSR/WotC/Hasbro owned D&D Adventure ???
This would be a licensing issue, and a likely choice for WotC
considering that it's already part of their Online Policy.
> First off, they are a business, and the first aim of a business is normally
> to make a profit. In this case this is done by either having created a
> recognizable brand name, or buying one and then creating an environment to
> sell it in. I for one would be annoyed if someone then used this loyalty in
> the brand name to try and sell shoddy merchandise to the public, so i can
> understand the fact that they would want to protect the name.
> I don't know what in D&D is actually trademarked, in fact i would be
> interested to know
Off the top of my head:
Various permutations of D&D, including of course "Advanced Dungeons &
Dragons."
TSR, and their logo.
WotC, and their logo.
Dungeon Master.
Maybe a few others. I wouldn't be surprised if they're asserting
trademarks on their major characters - the Circle of Eight, Zagyg,
Murlynd, etc.
> I would echo back to the original comment saying joint ownership
> - implying that if the print anything from a 3rd party source, that
> an equal share in the profits would be the minimum restitution
> required
This would be a licensing issue. There doesn't have to be a 50/50
split. In fact, I'm not even sure how common that is. It would
probably vary by writer: Ed Greenwood can ask WotC for much better
terms than I could, for example.
--
James
http://avalon.net/~amorph
James Robinson
<randolph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Melissa Tarkington wrote:
> <snip for brevity>
> Ok, here's my big poser:
>
> Why does WotC claim the rights to a beholder? Does WotC claim the rights
> to all of their generic monster/race names?
Not the name, only the specific D&D incarnations of the monsters.
> Like Elves, Orce, Ogres, Goblins, Demons, Balrogs, and the like?
There's no way in hell they could claim ownership of those names (for
one thing, the Tolkien estate would be after them for claiming the last
- the Balrog is a Tolkien creation). But if you bring in something
which is clearly a by-the-book D&D elf, that's different.
> That goes a bit far, doesn't it?
It looks to me like it heads rather rapidly into unenforceable
territory in a lot of cases. Where the monsters are pretty much
straight out of mythology, or where the creature (say, an elf) /could/
be a D&D elf but it's hard to say, or where it's not clear whether your
green rubbery regenerating troll is cribbed from D&D or from Jack
Vance. ;-)
My bet is that WotC will only go after the really obvious
infringements, using things like Beholders and Rust Monsters that
simply have no analog in any other fiction, game system or mythology
(to the best of my knowledge).
--
James
http://avalon.net/~amorph
Peter Seebach
Melissa Tarkington <melira_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>about accepting submissions from authors without getting all of the
>facts. I recently wrote to Peter Adkison, the CEO of Wizards of the
>Coast. I have his permission to forward his reply to the newsgroup.
Thanks!
Unfortunately, as long as Ryan Dancey is continuing to make disturbing
claims, and has not publically retracted them, I can only conclude that
Wizards is not unified on this policy; that implies that they may change
policy without warning.
The statements below directly contradict Dancey's claims. Furthermore,
there's a fair amount of room for wondering whether or not they're correct.
>If the writer throws in a beholder (a monster that WotC
>owns), then that story is no longer owned just by the writer;
How does WotC "own" the Beholder? Consider that Heroes of Might & Magic 3,
a video game, uses "beholders". They're not exactly identical to the AD&D
beholder... How about Elizabeth Moon's _Deed of Paksenarrion_, where a
"paladin" fights the spider-priests of "Achyra the webmistress"? Sounds like
AD&D to me... But it obviously isn't.
>this is because one of WotC's monsters is a part of it.
But WotC can't own a monster, because copyright covers the *EXPRESSION* of an
idea, *NOT THE IDEA ITSELF*.
How about the idea of "strength" or "hit points"? TSR historically claimed
these were covered by their copyright, and Dancey has put forward this theory
himself on many occasions.
If you look at "fair use" rulings in history, it really looks to me like, in
the absence of anything like the "open gaming license", you could write
stories using *ideas* from AD&D, as long as you weren't using their actual
text.
Look at what Hasbro does; they buy the rights to "Asteroids", then sue people
on the grounds that their copyright covers "triangular ships with thrusters on
the back".
Honestly, I don't trust them not to file a frivolous lawsuit about the use of
ideas that predate WotC by years and years, or about something that a court
would eventually find to be "fair use". It doesn't matter if they "lose";
look what they did to Clue Computing - 6 figure costs to defend themselves in
court, even though Hasbro "lost".
-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
The Wraith <wra...@powerup.com.au> wrote:
>Probably because they made it up - as in completely and utterly,
>straight out of someone's head - or, rather, someone at TSR did and
>WotC now owns everything that TSR owned when it was taken over.
You're quite sure there's *nothing* that was modified into a beholder?
What about specific demons? Does WOTC claim to own "Type VI (Balor)"?
Or is that a Balrog?
If I find a monster in a 1940's book with many eyes, does that make the
"beholder" PD?
I'd like to see the argument they have for "owning" the beholder. Do they
own the idea of ball-shaped monsters with multiple eyes? You can't own an
idea. The name "beholder"? What, exactly, are they claiming to own?
Peter Seebach
Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds <"news"@@@seankreynolds.com> wrote:
>A beholder, however, is a unique D&D creation and Wizards owns it
>entirely.
How? The idea of eye-shaped monsters? Can't own an "idea" except maybe with
a patent. The name beholder as applied to a monster with eyes? HOMM3 has
one, and I don't see you suing the 3DO company. The specific set of abilities
and powers? That's game rules, which normally aren't covered.
I agree, certainly, that WotC owns the specific text describing the beholder;
that's as far as I've seen anything demonstrated.
>Oh, and there are no balrogs in D&D (there may be things that look and
>act like balrogs, but there's no creature with that name).
So, you're claiming, then, that if I were to do an adventure or book involving
a couple-foot-diameter floating ball with one big eye and ten little eyes on
stalks, which was about as tough as a smallish giant, but had an amazing
variety of death-dealing powers, including an anti-magic ray from the
"central" eye, that this would in no way infringe on any WotC IP rights, as
long as I don't call it a "beholder"?
Or are you claiming that the Tolkein estate owns you? :)
Allister Huggins
>
> In article <8c3bln$s10$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Melissa Tarkington <melira_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
> >If the writer throws in a beholder (a monster that WotC
> >owns), then that story is no longer owned just by the writer;
>
> How does WotC "own" the Beholder? Consider that Heroes of Might & Magic 3,
Because originally TSR invented the creature and since WOTC bought TSR
lock, stock and barrel, they (WOTC) now own beholder.
> a video game, uses "beholders". They're not exactly identical to the AD&D
Same way that the Tolkein estate can't sue WOTC for using halflings.
Sure, you couldn't tell a hobbit from a halfling but a simple name
change is all TSR needed to get around the problem. Same thing with HoMM
since while it obviously is influenced by TSR's beholder, it isn't the
exact same thing.
> beholder... How about Elizabeth Moon's _Deed of Paksenarrion_, where a
> "paladin" fights the spider-priests of "Achyra the webmistress"? Sounds like
> AD&D to me... But it obviously isn't.
The term paladin is in the public domain and TSR didn't have a spider
goddess named Achyra.
> >this is because one of WotC's monsters is a part of it.
>
> But WotC can't own a monster, because copyright covers the *EXPRESSION* of an
> idea, *NOT THE IDEA ITSELF*.
I wouldn't be surprised if the term Beholder is actually under the
auspices of trademark and not copyright.
Allister H.
Peter Seebach
Eric Noah <eric...@home.com> wrote:
>The owner of copyrighted material is the only one who is legally allowed to
>copy, distribute, perform, display in public, or create derivative works
>from the material. So you can WRITE all the Beholder stories you want, you
>just can't publish, post on a bulletin board in a library, put on your web
>page, and so forth.
What about fair use?
I'm allowed to quote lyrics from music I like, with no permission, and indeed,
they can't *stop* me - it's fair use.
I would bet a court would hold that the production of gaming materials for use
with a system is "fair use".
Peter Seebach
Aardy R. DeVarque <aa...@enteract.NOJUNK.com> wrote:
>If I write a sequel to Stephen King's "Eyes of the Dragon", using the same
>fictional world and some of the same characters, I legally cannot publish it
>without SK's permission because my novel is a "derivative work" of SK's
>novel.
Right, because you bought a story, not a "setting in which to write stories".
>Game supplements are a little trickier. If a specific TSR-published game
>world is involved, then see above.
No, because *the intended use* is to use the setting to create adventures;
that would tend to put such adventures as "fair use".
>All this, *before* the arrival of the Open Gaming License (which could allow
>for *for-profit* ventures).
But the primary function of which appears to be to distract us from the rights
we have under "fair use" doctrine *which cannot be revoked by WotC*.
Peter Seebach
Allister Huggins <alhu...@REMOVESPAMhome.com> wrote:
> Because originally TSR invented the creature and since WOTC bought TSR
>lock, stock and barrel, they (WOTC) now own beholder.
Own how? Is it a rule?
> Same way that the Tolkein estate can't sue WOTC for using halflings.
>Sure, you couldn't tell a hobbit from a halfling but a simple name
>change is all TSR needed to get around the problem. Same thing with HoMM
>since while it obviously is influenced by TSR's beholder, it isn't the
>exact same thing.
Oh, I see. Well, fine; mine have 74hp.
> The term paladin is in the public domain and TSR didn't have a spider
>goddess named Achyra.
No, but obviously, the entire thing was derived directly from the paladin
class, and the spider goddess Lolth.
> I wouldn't be surprised if the term Beholder is actually under the
>auspices of trademark and not copyright.
They sure haven't *said* it's trademarked.
Allister Huggins
>
> In article <38e612a6...@news.ozemail.com.au>,
> The Wraith <wra...@powerup.com.au> wrote:
> >Probably because they made it up - as in completely and utterly,
> >straight out of someone's head - or, rather, someone at TSR did and
> >WotC now owns everything that TSR owned when it was taken over.
>
> You're quite sure there's *nothing* that was modified into a beholder?
Not to my knowledge. I'm pretty sure I remember this discussion on this
same newsgroup a few years back as to what influenced (mythological or
literary) the designs of the creatures found in the 1E MM. The consensus
was I believe only the beholder and maybe a couple other creatures
(beholder of course, being the most famous one).
> What about specific demons? Does WOTC claim to own "Type VI (Balor)"?
The name demon and devil can't be placed under copyright but I do
believe Balor comes from a literary source.
> Or is that a Balrog?
That belongs to Tolkein. Question to you Peter, do you think Tolkein
had a legal leg to stand on when they instigated that lawsuit against
TSR because of the word hobbit and balrog?
> If I find a monster in a 1940's book with many eyes, does that make the
> "beholder" PD?
Unless it looks *exactly* like the beholder, thus central eye on top of
which rests 8 eyestalks with a toothy maw, I would think it would be
pretty easy to find stories involving floating eyes.
> I'd like to see the argument they have for "owning" the beholder. Do they
> own the idea of ball-shaped monsters with multiple eyes? You can't own an
> idea. The name "beholder"? What, exactly, are they claiming to own?
I think the name "Beholder" falls under trademark.
Allister H.
Jerry Stratton
>I would bet a court would hold that the production of gaming materials for
>use
>with a system is "fair use".
As far as I know, "fair use" only applies if you're actually copying
text that is copyright by someone else.
The production of gaming materials for use with a system isn't fair
use--and it doesn't have to be. It's legal without that.
Now, it might very well be that fair use would allow copying minor
amounts of text in gaming materials, but you'd want to talk to a lawyer,
and I don't see how it would be worthwhile to go to the trouble, unless
you're talking about *really* minor amounts.
Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds
Peter Seebach wrote:
> How does WotC "own" the Beholder? Consider that Heroes of Might & Magic 3,
> a video game, uses "beholders". They're not exactly identical to the AD&D
> beholder...
It's the "not exactly identical" part that saves them. What do the M&M
beholders do? What are their powers?
> How about Elizabeth Moon's _Deed of Paksenarrion_, where a
> "paladin" fights the spider-priests of "Achyra the webmistress"?
TSR has never claimed a copyright on spiders or spider-priests...
> >this is because one of WotC's monsters is a part of it.
>
> But WotC can't own a monster, because copyright covers the *EXPRESSION* of an
> idea, *NOT THE IDEA ITSELF*.
I think that when people say "WotC owns this monster," they are
referring to the specific expression of that monster.
> How about the idea of "strength" or "hit points"? TSR historically claimed
> these were covered by their copyright,
TSR was wrong.
> and Dancey has put forward this theory
> himself on many occasions.
Hmm, has Ryan ever said that Wizards owns "strength" or "hit points"?
> If you look at "fair use" rulings in history, it really looks to me like, in
> the absence of anything like the "open gaming license", you could write
> stories using *ideas* from AD&D, as long as you weren't using their actual
> text.
Hmm, not really - not any more than you could legally publish stories
about Han Solo, or the Enterprise, or hobbits.
Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds
Peter Seebach wrote:
> I'd like to see the argument they have for "owning" the beholder. Do they
> own the idea of ball-shaped monsters with multiple eyes? You can't own an
> idea. The name "beholder"? What, exactly, are they claiming to own?
As a start, the Wizards copyright of the beholder probobly refers to
creatures that have the following properties:
are spherical
have ten eyestalks
have a central eye
have a sharp-toothed mouth under that eye
are evil
each eyestalk has a different magic power
the central eye is anti-magical
The Wraith
<skr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Peter Seebach wrote:
>
>> How about Elizabeth Moon's _Deed of Paksenarrion_, where a
>> "paladin" fights the spider-priests of "Achyra the webmistress"?
>
>TSR has never claimed a copyright on spiders or spider-priests...
Or paladins, more to the point.
Matt Harris
beholder - the picture could've been straight out of the monster manual.
- Floated about 5' off of the ground
- Spherical, about 2' in diameter
- 10 or so eyestalks (didn't get a good count)
- It showed beams coming from the eyestalks
- Large central eye
- Big mouth with lot o' teeth
- Don't know about being evil, but it was a bureaucrat (close enough in my
book)
Matt Harris
"Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds" <skr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:38E84271...@earthlink.net...
Tim Fitzmaurice
>
>
> Melissa Tarkington wrote:
> <snip for brevity>
> Ok, here's my big poser:
>
> Why does WotC claim the rights to a beholder? Does WotC claim the rights
> to all of their generic monster/race names? Like Elves, Orce, Ogres,
> Goblins, Demons, Balrogs, and the like? That goes a bit far, doesn't it?
> I guess I could understand a few specific monsters (such as the beholder
> ;p), but *all* the monsters?
The Wizards guy explcitly stated that generics (I believe he mentioned
ogres and trolls) were not covered or viewed as such by Wizards...
Tim
When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart
ICQ: 5178568
Tim Fitzmaurice
> In article <38E65165...@earthlink.net>,
> Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds <"news"@@@seankreynolds.com> wrote:
> >A beholder, however, is a unique D&D creation and Wizards owns it
> >entirely.
>
> How? The idea of eye-shaped monsters? Can't own an "idea" except maybe with
> a patent. The name beholder as applied to a monster with eyes? HOMM3 has
Character copyrights would be applicable here I assume. Every learned text
on the subject I've read spends quite a lot of time discussing such
mattersa dn then slinks away waving the 'grey area' flag. They'll agree it
exists, but not what it means....
Tim Fitzmaurice
> As a start, the Wizards copyright of the beholder probobly refers to
> creatures that have the following properties:
>
> are spherical
> have ten eyestalks
> have a central eye
> have a sharp-toothed mouth under that eye
> are evil
> each eyestalk has a different magic power
> the central eye is anti-magical
OK serious question then, given the way the whole thread has gone, how
much deviation is required before its not a violation. Since someone (in
fact I think you) said that D&D has things that looked like and acted like
balrogs but had no balrogs then any changes would have to be at the best
merely superficial (ie to violate it requires a complete and total copy).
Henry Link
Matt Harris <matth...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:8c9vrt$f97$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> On Futurama last night they had a creature that looked a lot like a
> beholder - the picture could've been straight out of the monster
manual.
>
> - Floated about 5' off of the ground
> - Spherical, about 2' in diameter
> - 10 or so eyestalks (didn't get a good count)
> - It showed beams coming from the eyestalks
> - Large central eye
> - Big mouth with lot o' teeth
> - Don't know about being evil, but it was a bureaucrat (close enough
in my
> book)
>
> Matt Harris
Parody, single appearance, not a regular cast member - fair use
clause.
VPenman
>As a start, the Wizards copyright of the beholder probobly refers to
>creatures that have the following properties:
>
> are spherical
> have ten eyestalks
> have a central eye
> have a sharp-toothed mouth under that eye
> are evil
> each eyestalk has a different magic power
> the central eye is anti-magical
Saw one of those on Futurama last night (sort of).
Victor
Patrick Berry
> > If I find a monster in a 1940's book with many eyes, does that make the
> > "beholder" PD?
>
> Unless it looks *exactly* like the beholder, thus central eye on top of
> which rests 8 eyestalks with a toothy maw, I would think it would be
> pretty easy to find stories involving floating eyes.
>
> > I'd like to see the argument they have for "owning" the beholder. Do they
> > own the idea of ball-shaped monsters with multiple eyes? You can't own an
> > idea. The name "beholder"? What, exactly, are they claiming to own?
Last night's episode of Futurama had a beholder in it. Really. It even
fired off beams from its eyes. Is this a copyright violation? Will
WotC sue Matt Groening or Fox?
Of course this isn't the first time. We all spotted the rust monster
last season. I haven't heard of any suits being filed over it.
James Robinson
<Pine.SOL.3.96.100040...@ursa.cus.cam.ac.uk>, Tim
Fitzmaurice <tj...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
[Sean posts a laundry list for identifying a D&D Beholder]
> OK serious question then, given the way the whole thread has gone, how
> much deviation is required before its not a violation. Since someone (in
> fact I think you) said that D&D has things that looked like and acted like
> balrogs but had no balrogs then any changes would have to be at the best
> merely superficial (ie to violate it requires a complete and total copy).
With the Balor, the Halfling, the Wight and Mithral as examples, it
would seem so.
--
James
http://avalon.net/~amorph
Adam Benedict Canning
"Aardy R. DeVarque" wrote:
> Game supplements are a little trickier. If a specific TSR-published game
> world is involved, then see above. Otherwise, the conservative position
> (which WotC follows) is that adventures & sourcebooks written explicitly for
> use with D&D (that is, actually using the D&D rules, such as for monster
> writeups, mages' spell lists, etc.) count as "derivative works." The
> liberal position (held by many gamers) is that, since rule systems can't be
> copyrighted (only the actual text used to describe them), that adventures &
> sourcebooks don't automatically count as *legally* "derivative," even though
> they are obviously "derivative" in the everyday sense of that word.
There is also the comment that certain sections in the DMG may be
permission to
nonexclusively utilise the material.
Cf http://web.cs.ualberta.ca/~wade/HyperDnd/TSR/top.html
> >"Use" presumably includes publishing for profit (and I agree with that).
> >
> >However: what else does "use" mean? Posting to Usenet? Putting it on a
> >web site? Being sent via email?
>
> Any sort of distribution beyond yourself, other than being used by yourself
> in a D&D game you are part of. Posting to Usenet, putting on a web page,
> e-mailing all count. So does printing it out and selling it at conventions.
>
Adam
Adam Benedict Canning
The Wraith wrote:
>
> On Mon, 03 Apr 2000 06:59:57 GMT, Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds
> <skr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Peter Seebach wrote:
> >
> >> How about Elizabeth Moon's _Deed of Paksenarrion_, where a
> >> "paladin" fights the spider-priests of "Achyra the webmistress"?
> >
> >TSR has never claimed a copyright on spiders or spider-priests...
>
> Or paladins, more to the point.
Or ever given a list of terms it considers copyright or trademark.
Adam
Christopher Adams
>> lot like a beholder - the picture could've been straight out
>> of the monster manual.
That's why we're having this discussion, though it's no longer clear. You ought
to know how threads mutate.
By the way, it's been established that parody is a kind of fair use, so . . .
--
Kit
A man of no fortune, and with a name to come.
Vice-President SUTEKH 2000
Librarian PAGUS 2000
-------------
You lousy minx! I oughtta have you spayed!
- The Penguin, "Batman Returns"
Christopher Adams
>> "Type VI (Balor)"?
>
> The name demon and devil can't be placed under copyright
> but I do believe Balor comes from a literary source.
IIRC, Balor was a Fomori warlord from Irish myth who possessed a magical
death-gazing eye, and he was killed when a spear knocked it around in his head,
turning its gaze on Balor himself.
Christopher Adams
> inventions.
I may be wrong, but, as I said elsewhere, I'm fairly certain Balor appears in
Irish myth, though, like Medusa the Gorgon, the D&D incarnation isn't much like
the original.
Christopher Adams
> mentioned ogres and trolls) were not covered or viewed as
> such by Wizards...
Names, yes. But, say, if a fantasy film was released that featured tall, gangly,
rubber-skinned flesh-eating regenerating monsters vulnerable to little aside
from fire and acid and referred to as "trolls," would that be a violation? I'm
assuming that TSR/WotC were the first to use such a concept, of course; a better
example might be a fire-breathing bull-like animal with hooves of brass called a
gorgon, which is almost certainly an invention besides the name.
Robert Baldwin
<snip>
>I'd like to see the argument they have for "owning" the beholder. Do they
>own the idea of ball-shaped monsters with multiple eyes? You can't own an
>idea. The name "beholder"? What, exactly, are they claiming to own?
Anyone else see last night's episode of Futurama? If that *wasn't* a
beholder, it was an intelligent, talking Gas Spore with pen-ligts on
it's stalks. ;-)
Hmmm...WOTC/Hasbro v Fox. Now *that's* a legal battle worth watching.
--
Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
-
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well." [St. B]
"Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" [MSB]
-
Spam Satan! www.sluggy.com
Remove the spam-block to reply
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
<snip>
> My bet is that WotC will only go after the really obvious
>infringements, using things like Beholders and Rust Monsters that
>simply have no analog in any other fiction, game system or mythology
>(to the best of my knowledge).
Heh. *Both* of those have now had "cameo" appearances on Futurama.
Robert Baldwin
<skr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>Jerry Stratton wrote:
>> And it may not even have been answering the question the original poster
>> wanted answered, which related to "D&D material". It's one thing to
>> write a story which includes a creature called a 'beholder' that looks
>> like a D&D beholder (assuming for the moment that beholders were made up
>> for D&D), and another thing entirely to write an adventure which
>> includes the note that a beholder exists here and gives game stats on
>> the creature. One is a character from a work of fiction, the other is a
>> piece of game rules.
>> The former might or might not be legal, depending on the circumstance.
>> The latter definitely is legal, (as long as it doesn't look like you're
>> claiming to be WOTC or are approved by WOTC when this is not true).
>
>Using a D&D beholder in a story or a game product (it makes no
>difference which) without Wizards' permission is a copyright violation.
>The current online policy gives you permission to do so as long as
>you're not trying to make money with it.
Is WOTC taking legal action against Fox?
'Cause if they *don't*, then my "floating-ball, many-eyed stak with
rays of doom & destruction" monster is based on the "alien" from
Futurama, not the TSR created Beholder.
Jerry Stratton
wrote:
>On Sat, 01 Apr 2000 19:46:51 GMT, Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds
><skr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>Using a D&D beholder in a story or a game product (it makes no
>>difference which) without Wizards' permission is a copyright violation.
>>The current online policy gives you permission to do so as long as
>>you're not trying to make money with it.
>
>Is WOTC taking legal action against Fox?
>'Cause if they *don't*, then my "floating-ball, many-eyed stak with
>rays of doom & destruction" monster is based on the "alien" from
>Futurama, not the TSR created Beholder.
Apparently, what Sean meant by "use" and what I meant are two different
things, since I used a D&D beholder in a for-profit adventure in my
reply to his statement above, and he stated that was not a violation.
Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds
Tim Fitzmaurice wrote:
>
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds wrote:
>
> > As a start, the Wizards copyright of the beholder probobly refers to
> > creatures that have the following properties:
> >
> > are spherical
> > have ten eyestalks
> > have a central eye
> > have a sharp-toothed mouth under that eye
> > are evil
> > each eyestalk has a different magic power
> > the central eye is anti-magical
>
> OK serious question then, given the way the whole thread has gone, how
> much deviation is required before its not a violation.
Unfortunately, that's usually left for the courts to decide. :/
Tim Fitzmaurice
>
> Unfortunately, that's usually left for the courts to decide. :/
OK, well rephrase then. Can you find out who would decide how much
deviation is required for it to avoid violation as far as WotC would be
concerned, and if they've decided?
Its useful to know that kind of thing.
tussock
> Hmm.... so do we have to start using "hit ports" and "armour class" in all
> our modules? I'm sure we could make a long list of non-trademarked
> substitutes.....
>
> "Dracolurch"
Undying Draconic Magi.
> "Illithilid"
Star spawn of Cthulu, oh someone else has that copyrited?
> "Behorder"
Nose-Tyrant. A big floating nose, with lots of little noses on stalks. When the
main nose sneezes it generates a huge anti-magic cloud. The little ones generate
various magical effects...
> "Bazatu"
> "Taneri"
Hmm, I think I'd use demons and devils instead. 8]
> etc. etc.
Howzabout the Fireblast and Lightning Beam attacks. Mystic missile?
--
tussock
It's bleedin' seabird flavoured, isn't it?
Assaf Stone
>Sheitan wrote:
>
>> Hmm.... so do we have to start using "hit ports" and "armour class" in all
>> our modules? I'm sure we could make a long list of non-trademarked
>> substitutes.....
>>
>> "Dracolurch"
>
>Undying Draconic Magi.
>
>> "Illithilid"
>
>Star spawn of Cthulu, oh someone else has that copyrited?
>
>> "Behorder"
>
>Nose-Tyrant. A big floating nose, with lots of little noses on stalks. When the
>main nose sneezes it generates a huge anti-magic cloud. The little ones generate
>various magical effects...
>
>> "Bazatu"
>> "Taneri"
>
>Hmm, I think I'd use demons and devils instead. 8]
>
More monsters:
"Jabbering Mouther"
A mound of faces, speaking nonsense at you.
"Ballette"
A giant bouncing shark-like mammel.
"Carrion Hopper"
A giant insect that jumps like a flea, and paralyses you with it's bite.
>> etc. etc.
>
>Howzabout the Fireblast and Lightning Beam attacks. Mystic missile?
Alf's Minute Comets, Larry's Mental Improver, Hand of Killing, Cirby's
Smashing Appendage?
---
If At first you don't succeed,
SUCK HARDER!!!
Bryan J. Maloney
> Is WOTC taking legal action against Fox?
> 'Cause if they *don't*, then my "floating-ball, many-eyed stak with
> rays of doom & destruction" monster is based on the "alien" from
> Futurama, not the TSR created Beholder.
Satire.
--
"Before we judge the lobotomist of old too severely, we
should go to the nearest street grate and see how we are
dealing with our mental health crisis today."
Bryan J. Maloney
<Pine.SOL.3.96.100040...@taurus.cus.cam.ac.uk>, Tim
Fitzmaurice <tj...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Apr 2000, Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds wrote:
>
> >
> > Unfortunately, that's usually left for the courts to decide. :/
>
> OK, well rephrase then. Can you find out who would decide how much
> deviation is required for it to avoid violation as far as WotC would be
> concerned, and if they've decided?
That's siimple: If it looks the LEAST TINY BIT like D&D, then WoTC OWNS
it--at least that's what Ryan Dancey has apparently claimed.
Bryan J. Maloney
<ad...@syd.comcen.com.au> wrote:
> > The terms "halfling", "Balor" and "Roaring Demon" were later
> > inventions.
>
> I may be wrong, but, as I said elsewhere, I'm fairly certain Balor appears in
> Irish myth, though, like Medusa the Gorgon, the D&D incarnation isn't much
"Balor" was used because they dropped "Balrog"--the term TSR earlier
used. "Halfling" appeared in Lord of the Rings as a synonym for "Hobbit".
Bryan J. Maloney
<ad...@syd.comcen.com.au> wrote:
> >> What about specific demons? Does WOTC claim to own
> >> "Type VI (Balor)"?
> >
> > The name demon and devil can't be placed under copyright
> > but I do believe Balor comes from a literary source.
>
> IIRC, Balor was a Fomori warlord from Irish myth who possessed a magical
> death-gazing eye, and he was killed when a spear knocked it around in
his head,
> turning its gaze on Balor himself.
Not quite: His head was cut off and fell backwards, turning its gaze upon
the Fomoran army, but the same general idea.
Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds
Tim Fitzmaurice wrote:
> OK, well rephrase then. Can you find out who would decide how much
> deviation is required for it to avoid violation as far as WotC would be
> concerned, and if they've decided?
No, because I'm sure it would vary from creature to creature. And
there's no way Wizards is going to define how to copy their property by
making it "different enough" that they won't sue you.
Either make up your own stuff or use Wizards' material according to the
guidelines they establish. It's that simple.
Aardy R. DeVarque
>In article <qjifesk5fbh76tneu...@4ax.com>,
>Aardy R. DeVarque <aa...@enteract.NOJUNK.com> wrote:
>>If I write a sequel to Stephen King's "Eyes of the Dragon", using the same
>>fictional world and some of the same characters, I legally cannot publish it
>>without SK's permission because my novel is a "derivative work" of SK's
>>novel.
>
>Right, because you bought a story, not a "setting in which to write stories".
Even Greyhawk isn't exactly a "setting in which to write stories." A
setting in which to set the games you play, sure.
>>Game supplements are a little trickier. If a specific TSR-published game
>>world is involved, then see above.
>
>No, because *the intended use* is to use the setting to create adventures;
>that would tend to put such adventures as "fair use".
Not quite--the *intended use* is to create adventures, and play them with
your group of friends. So you can create & play all you want. However,
giving away copies of your adventures to total strangers has very little to
do with that "intended use." Good luck arguing "fair use" for any usages
outside writing for your own use & personal pleasure/writing for use inside
a game you are a part of.
TSR, and now WotC, argue in part that "character copyright" covers many of
the "fictional" concepts that go into their creatures, characters, and game
worlds. Their argument makes a lot of sense, though it is not necessarily
correct. (Character copyright is *so* much of a grey area that it makes
Fair Use's tests look like a clear-cut black & white decision.) However, if
you think of using Greyhawk as the setting for a novel or gaming accessory
(module, sourcebook, whatever) of your own as something similar to writing a
sequel to a Stephen King novel, you can see where they're coming from.
However, the quickest way around character copyright is to make obvious
changes--just look at how TSR got around Tolkien's character copyright on
Hobbits, Ents, and the Balrog after the Tolkien Estate complained. (Simply
renamed to Halflings, Treants, and Type VI Demons/Balor, respectively.)
After that, as long as you aren't explicitly quoting anything, you're
probably in the clear.
For more details on what might/might not be covered in copyright, ask around
in news:misc.int-property --IANAL, but some of the folk there are.
>>All this, *before* the arrival of the Open Gaming License (which could allow
>>for *for-profit* ventures).
>
>But the primary function of which appears to be to distract us from the rights
>we have under "fair use" doctrine *which cannot be revoked by WotC*.
I suspect that's *a* primary function, but not necessarily *the* primary
function. (Which would seem to be an attempt to stop all non-D20 rule
systems from being actively published.) And FTR, "fair use" isn't the only
part of copyright law that's in play here.
Steve Miller
<< Either make up your own stuff or use Wizards' material according to the
guidelines they establish. It's that simple. >>
One would think so.
Simple concepts are the hardest ones to grasp. This discussion has been going
on what about *five* *years* now.
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"
Aardy R. DeVarque
>On Tue, 4 Apr 2000, Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds wrote:
>
>>
>> Unfortunately, that's usually left for the courts to decide. :/
>
>OK, well rephrase then. Can you find out who would decide how much
>deviation is required for it to avoid violation as far as WotC would be
>concerned, and if they've decided?
>
>Its useful to know that kind of thing.
It's really only useful if you plan on making money from your D&D work.
Wizard's Official Online Copyright Policy can pretty much be summed up as
"as long as you don't make money on it, and don't copy out chunks of our
text, we don't care what you do." In short, fans sharing their creations
aren't exactly likely to be in any legal trouble...
And if you *do* plan on making money from your D&D work, look into the Open
Gaming License, which would let you do exactly that, again without any
threat of lawsuits from WotC.
Aardy R. DeVarque
> It looks to me like it heads rather rapidly into unenforceable
>territory in a lot of cases. Where the monsters are pretty much
>straight out of mythology, or where the creature (say, an elf) /could/
>be a D&D elf but it's hard to say, or where it's not clear whether your
>green rubbery regenerating troll is cribbed from D&D or from Jack
>Vance. ;-)
Poul Anderson's _Three Hearts & Three Lions_, actually. Vance created the
fire & forget magic system, spells like Pristmatic Spray, Ioun stones, and
the like.
> My bet is that WotC will only go after the really obvious
>infringements, using things like Beholders and Rust Monsters that
>simply have no analog in any other fiction, game system or mythology
>(to the best of my knowledge).
And even then, they've repeatedly stated that they won't go after fans
sharing new D&D creations/fiction/whatever for the love of the game (that
is, not-for-profit).
Aardy R. DeVarque
>But, say, if a fantasy film was released that featured tall, gangly,
>rubber-skinned flesh-eating regenerating monsters vulnerable to little aside
>from fire and acid and referred to as "trolls," would that be a violation? I'm
>assuming that TSR/WotC were the first to use such a concept,
Trolls of that name & description are originally from Poul Anderson's
excellent novel _Three Hearts & Three Lions_. That's where Gygax cribbed
them from.
>of course; a better
>example might be a fire-breathing bull-like animal with hooves of brass called a
>gorgon, which is almost certainly an invention besides the name.
Gorgons of that name & description are from a 1600's beastiary. I'm
blanking on the full cite right now, but it was posted in a thread about the
origins of various D&D creatures a couple years back, and can be found at
http://www.deja.com/home_ps.shtml
:)
Jason Eric Nelson
>>But, say, if a fantasy film was released that featured tall, gangly,
>>rubber-skinned flesh-eating regenerating monsters vulnerable to little aside
>>from fire and acid and referred to as "trolls," would that be a violation? I'm
>>assuming that TSR/WotC were the first to use such a concept,
>
>Trolls of that name & description are originally from Poul Anderson's
>excellent novel _Three Hearts & Three Lions_. That's where Gygax cribbed
>them from.
>
>>of course; a better
>>example might be a fire-breathing bull-like animal with hooves of brass called a
>>gorgon, which is almost certainly an invention besides the name.
>
>Gorgons of that name & description are from a 1600's beastiary.
They also date from the "Jason" saga of Greek mythology, in which he yoked
King Aeetes' fire-breathing bronze (at least in hoof and horn, if not flesh)
bulls and plowed a field with dragon's teeth, etc. etc.
D&D could claim the petrifying breath if they like; that's a new one on me.
Jason Nelson
tja...@u.washington.edu
"God is like Coke - He's the real thing"
Bryan J. Maloney
<aa...@enteract.NOJUNK.com> wrote:
> TSR, and now WotC, argue in part that "character copyright" covers many of
> the "fictional" concepts that go into their creatures, characters, and game
> worlds. Their argument makes a lot of sense, though it is not necessarily
Even I am willing to allow that "character copyright" extends to
settings. It's when certain folks try to claim that a similar sort of
protection extends to rules that I get annoyed.
Bryan J. Maloney
> Either make up your own stuff or use Wizards' material according to the
> guidelines they establish. It's that simple.
Game rules are ideas. Ideas cannot be copyrighted. If one does not quote
the specific text owned by WoTC but merely REFERS to it as needed...
Bryan J. Maloney
nue...@aol.comDELETEIT (Steve Miller) wrote:
> Sean K. Reynolds wrote:
>
> << Either make up your own stuff or use Wizards' material according to the
> guidelines they establish. It's that simple. >>
>
> One would think so.
>
> Simple concepts are the hardest ones to grasp. This discussion has been going
> on what about *five* *years* now.
The problem is when WoTC folks come on and make noises to the effect that
game rules are protected in such a way that it requires a "license" to
merely REFER to them in a product.
The Wraith
Maloney) wrote:
>In article <38e8c...@nexus.comcen.com.au>, "Christopher Adams"
><ad...@syd.comcen.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> IIRC, Balor was a Fomori warlord from Irish myth who possessed a magical
>> death-gazing eye, and he was killed when a spear knocked it around in
>his head,
>> turning its gaze on Balor himself.
>
>Not quite: His head was cut off and fell backwards, turning its gaze upon
>the Fomoran army, but the same general idea.
Quite a few old myths have a number of different versions. Both of
these might be versions believed by one group of Irish people or
another.
--
Now, by popular demand, a new .sig!
I still can't think of anything witty to say, though.
The Wraith
Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds
"Bryan J. Maloney" wrote:
>
> In article <38EA0F2A...@earthlink.net>, "news"@@@seankreynolds.com wrote:
>
> > Either make up your own stuff or use Wizards' material according to the
> > guidelines they establish. It's that simple.
>
> Game rules are ideas. Ideas cannot be copyrighted. If one does not quote
> the specific text owned by WoTC but merely REFERS to it as needed...
We're not talking about the same thing. He was asking, "OK, just how
much do I have to change a beholder before it's not Wizards' creature
any more?"
(I have never argued that you cannot have an adventure that says "The
master mind of this dungeon, a beholder, lives in this room." If
everyone assumes you mean a D&D beholder, good for you and them.)
Tim Fitzmaurice
> No, because I'm sure it would vary from creature to creature. And
> there's no way Wizards is going to define how to copy their property by
> making it "different enough" that they won't sue you.
>
> Either make up your own stuff or use Wizards' material according to the
> guidelines they establish. It's that simple.
What I was specifically thinking of is variants or similar creatures
(designed to kick my players off) in my personal campaign if I should say
scribble it on the web. Now the Online policy is expansive and helpful in
this matter. But its not immutable, and there does seem to be a difference
in reading. I'm just wondering whether I should just stick to published
stuff in toto, or whether such variations would be covered in the online
policy (its a bit grey, being neither a new 'module' type thing, nor use
of 'published material').....or at least who in the company to ask.
Tim Fitzmaurice
> "Bryan J. Maloney" wrote:
> > Game rules are ideas. Ideas cannot be copyrighted. If one does not quote
> > the specific text owned by WoTC but merely REFERS to it as needed...
>
> We're not talking about the same thing. He was asking, "OK, just how
> much do I have to change a beholder before it's not Wizards' creature
> any more?"
Indeed that was mainly what I was after, but fo specific reasons, I've
elaborated, in a further post....its because varying monsters seemed not
to fit into the Online policy (unless it does and its fine and dandy under
those rules, in which case, case closed)
Tim Fitzmaurice
> In article
> <Pine.SOL.3.96.100040...@taurus.cus.cam.ac.uk>, Tim
> Fitzmaurice <tj...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 4 Apr 2000, Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds wrote:
> > > Unfortunately, that's usually left for the courts to decide. :/
> >
> > OK, well rephrase then. Can you find out who would decide how much
> > deviation is required for it to avoid violation as far as WotC would be
> > concerned, and if they've decided?
>
> That's siimple: If it looks the LEAST TINY BIT like D&D, then WoTC OWNS
> it--at least that's what Ryan Dancey has apparently claimed.
Well I was asking Sean's opinion not Ryan Dancey's, and this wasn't
helpful. I'm trying to get a reasonable answer to a reasonable question
and knee jerks like this having a go at him for someone else's
statements are just going to irritate the guy.
Steve Miller
<< I'm trying to get a reasonable answer to a reasonable question
and knee jerks like this having a go at him for someone else's
statements are just going to irritate the guy. >>
You must be knew in these parts, Tim.
30% of posters here live to irritate Sean. It's what gives their otherwise
empty existences meaning.
Steve Miller
<< You must be knew in these parts, Tim. >>
"new" even.
Lesson: Never post before coffee.
Bryan J. Maloney
<Pine.SOL.3.96.100040...@taurus.cus.cam.ac.uk>, Tim
Fitzmaurice <tj...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Apr 2000, Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds wrote:
>
> > "Bryan J. Maloney" wrote:
> > > Game rules are ideas. Ideas cannot be copyrighted. If one does not quote
> > > the specific text owned by WoTC but merely REFERS to it as needed...
> >
> > We're not talking about the same thing. He was asking, "OK, just how
> > much do I have to change a beholder before it's not Wizards' creature
> > any more?"
>
> Indeed that was mainly what I was after, but fo specific reasons, I've
> elaborated, in a further post....its because varying monsters seemed not
> to fit into the Online policy (unless it does and its fine and dandy under
> those rules, in which case, case closed)
Here's the problem. Sean, who understands US Intellectual Property law,
said what he has said. Unfortunately, he is not a high-up WoTC senior
executive. Ryan, who does not understand US IP law IS a high-up WoTC
senior executive, and Ryan has said that even merely REFERRING to D&D
rules has to fall under some kind of "license".
Bryan J. Maloney
<Pine.SOL.3.96.100040...@taurus.cus.cam.ac.uk>, Tim
Fitzmaurice <tj...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Apr 2000, Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <Pine.SOL.3.96.100040...@taurus.cus.cam.ac.uk>, Tim
> > Fitzmaurice <tj...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 4 Apr 2000, Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds wrote:
> > > > Unfortunately, that's usually left for the courts to decide. :/
> > >
> > > OK, well rephrase then. Can you find out who would decide how much
> > > deviation is required for it to avoid violation as far as WotC would be
> > > concerned, and if they've decided?
> >
> > That's siimple: If it looks the LEAST TINY BIT like D&D, then WoTC OWNS
> > it--at least that's what Ryan Dancey has apparently claimed.
>
> Well I was asking Sean's opinion not Ryan Dancey's, and this wasn't
> helpful. I'm trying to get a reasonable answer to a reasonable question
> and knee jerks like this having a go at him for someone else's
> statements are just going to irritate the guy.
Sean isn't in a position to set WoTC policy or who decides to to sic
WoTC's lawyers onto somebody. Ryan is. Thus, no matter how reasonable
Sean is, it's ultimately Ryan's ignorance that will weigh heavier.
Aardy R. DeVarque
>In article <6m6kes0dcv2ent36n...@4ax.com>, Aardy R. DeVarque
><aa...@enteract.NOJUNK.com> wrote:
>
>> TSR, and now WotC, argue in part that "character copyright" covers many of
>> the "fictional" concepts that go into their creatures, characters, and game
>> worlds. Their argument makes a lot of sense, though it is not necessarily
>
>Even I am willing to allow that "character copyright" extends to
>settings. It's when certain folks try to claim that a similar sort of
>protection extends to rules that I get annoyed.
Ditto.
I can see a line of argument leading to the conclusion that game rules might
also count under character copyright (something along the lines of "since
describing the character with words counts, describing the same character
with abbreviations & numbers also counts--both are valid & immediately
recognizable (to a gamer, at least) ways of describing the same
character."), but I prefer to just go with the Copyright Circular that
plainly states "game rules cannot be copyrighted" (though the actual text
used to explain them *can* be copyrighted).
Aardy R. DeVarque
>Aardy R. DeVarque <aa...@enteract.NOJUNK.com> wrote:
>>>of course; a better
>>>example might be a fire-breathing bull-like animal with hooves of brass called a
>>>gorgon, which is almost certainly an invention besides the name.
>>
>>Gorgons of that name & description are from a 1600's beastiary.
>
>They also date from the "Jason" saga of Greek mythology, in which he yoked
>King Aeetes' fire-breathing bronze (at least in hoof and horn, if not flesh)
>bulls and plowed a field with dragon's teeth, etc. etc.
True, but those weren't called "gorgons," though. :) Similar creatures were
called such in the bestiary. I have a few minutes to surf Deja.com and...
Voila! Edward Topsell's _History of 4-Footed Beasts_, 1607; the gorgon
reference is not original to Topsell, but rather is translated from Conrad
Gesner's _Historiae animalium_ (1551)
(Deja.com URLS are a nightmare to post, but doing a power search for the
thread with the subject "Okay, I need some help here" from June 1997 will
turn up most of the info on the origins of some D&D critters. So will
searching for Message-IDs <33b239f9....@news.anet-chi.com> and
<33b58f74....@news.anet-chi.com>, and then clicking on Return to
Thread after you've read those two.
>D&D could claim the petrifying breath if they like; that's a new one on me.
The original had "lethal breath". Close enough to see the reference, but
that (and some other details) are probably different enough from the
original for TSR to try to claim their own version.
Peter Seebach
James Robinson <amo...@avalon.net> wrote:
> Various permutations of D&D, including of course "Advanced Dungeons &
>Dragons."
Note, of course, that you are always allowed to use a trademarked name
*to refer to the actual trademarked product*. You have to aknowledge that
it's a trademark.
However, if I make a drink mixer and recommend that it goes well with Coke,
Coke can't stop me, as long as I acknowledge their trademark. Ditto with
"adventures which work with D&D", so far as I know; as long as I acknowledge
that:
1. It's their trademark.
2. They are not endorsing my product in any way.
I'm just making a statement of fact, and I am not diluting their trademark,
because I'm not trying to pretend that "D&D" is something other than their
game system.
-s
--
Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
Get paid to surf! No spam. http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=GZX636
Peter Seebach
Allister Huggins <alhu...@REMOVESPAMhome.com> wrote:
> That belongs to Tolkein. Question to you Peter, do you think Tolkein
>had a legal leg to stand on when they instigated that lawsuit against
>TSR because of the word hobbit and balrog?
Perhaps. If they use the "distinctive setting" argument, maybe. If that's
the argument TSR wants to make, though, they should be saying "distinctive
setting", not "creature".
>> I'd like to see the argument they have for "owning" the beholder. Do they
>> own the idea of ball-shaped monsters with multiple eyes? You can't own an
>> idea. The name "beholder"? What, exactly, are they claiming to own?
> I think the name "Beholder" falls under trademark.
It can't, it doesn't have a trademark symbol. :)
Anyway, it would be stupid and insane to try to trademark it, and I doubt they
could make it stand up in court.
Peter Seebach
Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds <"news"@@@seankreynolds.com> wrote:
>As a start, the Wizards copyright of the beholder probobly refers to
>creatures that have the following properties:
> are spherical
> have ten eyestalks
> have a central eye
> have a sharp-toothed mouth under that eye
> are evil
> each eyestalk has a different magic power
> the central eye is anti-magical
But I don't see how this is copyrightable. What "idea" is being "expressed"
here? I see an idea, certainly, but I don't see any *expression* in the
beholder; the beholder, itself, *IS* the idea; the *expression* (which is
all copyright can normally cover) is the flavor text, specific statistics,
etc., insofar as those don't fall under the "can't copyright rules" problem.
Peter Seebach
>guidelines they establish. It's that simple.
The problem here is that, especially when we include Mr. Dancey in the
picture, that the guidelines Wizards has offered have, at times, been *really*
unlivable.
Since January 1st, I have seen a WotC vice president explicitly state that I
do not have any rights, at all, to the campaign world I am currently running,
and that WotC owns it. He has claimed that any character designed using AD&D
stats is a "derivative work" of the "AD&D rules system", which is not
consistent with what I have heard of copyright law.
Basically, the problem is that, to the best of my knowledge, there are rights
I have under copyright law that at least one person at WotC is trying to claim
I don't have. So, I can't trust Wizards to tell me truthfully what my rights
*are*, so I don't really feel that it's "that simple".
Imagine if Mr. Dancey worked for a fiction book publisher, and made the claim
that the copyright on one of their books had the implication that a review
could not quote the book, or rather, that it was, in his words, "an
infringement", albeit one for which there is no direct penalty.
He has made the claim that fair use is an infringement. Should I, then,
refrain from "fair use" of WotC materials?
The problem here is that, when you create material which is intended to be
used as a basis for further work, you give up a lot of the control of that
material you might otherwise have. WotC seems to be trying to deny this, and
as long as this is the case, I am concerned about the viability of the D&D
system, and/or the D20 system.
Is the D20 license a step forwards? Certainly. However, the fact is this:
UNDER THE D20 LICENSE AS PROPOSED I HAVE FEWER RIGHTS THAN I WOULD HAVE IF
NO SUCH LICENSE HAD BEEN WRITTEN AND I HAD ONLY MY STATUTORY RIGHTS UNDER
NORMAL COPYRIGHT LAW..
That's hardly a helpful guideline.
Peter Seebach
>much do I have to change a beholder before it's not Wizards' creature
>any more?"
Right.
>(I have never argued that you cannot have an adventure that says "The
>master mind of this dungeon, a beholder, lives in this room." If
>everyone assumes you mean a D&D beholder, good for you and them.)
How about if I say
Since the mastermind is a beholder, it is recommended that
the party be aware of what they're getting into; at least one
raise dead scroll or item should probably be available, and
the party should be fairly experienced (probably at least 7th
level).
I'm not quoting a single sentence of TSR's copyrighted material.
By my reading of copyright law (I admit IANAL), that is fair use, and it would
not be possible for WotC to deny me permission to use that in a published
adventure *EVEN IF THEY WANTED TO*, *EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF ANYTHING LIKE THE
D20 LICENSE*.
I have not seen any compelling argument made by anyone that this is *not* the
case. Indeed, all the reading I've done on fair use seems to support this
idea. Given that, what is meant by WotC's "copyright" on the beholder?
If your claim is that I would not, in the absence of special licensing, be
permitted to publish a "monster book" in which I used your beholder as a
creature, I don't think I'll try to argue the point; I'm willing to believe
that, and certainly, it would be horrendously abusive and against the spirit
of copyright law for me to reprint the entire Monstrous Compendium with new
flavor text and a few statistics changed.
However, it is *JUST* as abusive for Mr. Dancey to continue making claims
to the effect that fair use means an infringement occurred, or that WotC owns
anything designed for use with the AD&D system.