Is "Kender" copywritten?
CB
very similar to a Kender. So do I make up a character class to cover my
ass, or can I use a Kender, without anyone's permission?
"Two foot eleven, thirty six CB Borger
pounds, don't wear any pants, c...@asu.edu
and svelte, buoyant water fowl." ASU Theatre
--Opus
Bryan J. Maloney
<gau...@imap2.asu.edu> wrote:
> I am writing a short story and I wanted to use a character which would be
> very similar to a Kender. So do I make up a character class to cover my
> ass, or can I use a Kender, without anyone's permission?
One: If it's an actual story and not just a piece of campaign writeup
crap, you don't need a "character class". Stories don't have character
classes.
Two: "Kender" is very likely TRADEMARKED. You cannot copyright a single
word. However, "Kender" is probably trademarked by TSR.
Three: Try originality, for a change. Don't suck of TSR's worlds for
your own fiction.
Eric C. Putnam
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960109...@general1.asu.edu>, CB
> <gau...@imap2.asu.edu> wrote:
>
> > I am writing a short story and I wanted to use a character which would be
> > very similar to a Kender. So do I make up a character class to cover my
> > ass, or can I use a Kender, without anyone's permission?
[SNIP]
> Two: "Kender" is very likely TRADEMARKED. You cannot copyright a single
> word. However, "Kender" is probably trademarked by TSR.
[SNIP]
The race "kender" is probably also the subject of a copyright by TSR, by
dint of its inclusion in TSR-owned fiction and gaming books.
If you would like to write a story featuring kender or any other D&D or
AD&D race, you might want to check out http://users.aol.com/tsrinc/ for a
copy of TSR's Writer's Guidelines. Using the guidelines, you can submit a
story that is purely derivative of AD&D to DRAGON Magazine or TSR's
Fiction Department.
If you don't want to deal with TSR, your best bet is to steer clear of
such things.
Good Luck,
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
ERIC PUTNAM | "You can sit around and stare at the
epu...@osf1.gmu.edu | picture tube
One Guy's Opinion...| 'Til your brain turns into cottage cheese."
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Russ 'Argel' LeBar
: On 14 Jan 1996, John Merrall wrote:
: > How do you "copyright" a make-believe race?
: >
: > Trademark them, yes. Copyright them, no.
: You're incorrect. The entire explanation for why involves "derivative
: works," the DragonLance(R) novels, the hardback "DragonLance(R)
: Adventures," and the boxed set "Tales of the Lance." Suffice it to say
: that because only TSR can produce works containing "kender" as TSR has
: defined them, "kender" as TSR has defined them are therefore copyrighted.
Hold it here. The Kender race is an idea -- copyrights don't protect
ideas.
--
/---Russ-LeBar-------+------ c62...@missouri.edu ---------S()---------\
| // Dare to Dream | Creator of Argel Ptrs & Term toolstrip imagery |
| \X/ A M I G A | A1200-6MB-14Mhz881-426HD -- Term beta tester |
+^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^+
|WWW: http://www.missouri.edu/~c621412/ - Kathy Troccoli, artwork, etc.|
|FTP: musie.phlab.missouri.edu in pub/amiga - (Term betas, ArgelPtrs..)|
\------S()--Argel----------- Opinions are mine & thus CORRECT =) ------/
John Merrall
: The race "kender" is probably also the subject of a copyright by TSR, by
: dint of its inclusion in TSR-owned fiction and gaming books.
How do you "copyright" a make-believe race?
Eric C. Putnam
You're incorrect. The entire explanation for why involves "derivative
works," the DragonLance(R) novels, the hardback "DragonLance(R)
Adventures," and the boxed set "Tales of the Lance." Suffice it to say
that because only TSR can produce works containing "kender" as TSR has
defined them, "kender" as TSR has defined them are therefore copyrighted.
To learn more about copyrights, consult the following sources:
Ten Big Myths About Copyright Explained
http://www.clari.net/brad/copymyths.html
Intellectual Property Primer
http://www.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/ip-primer
17 USC ss 101-803 (Copyright Act of 1976, as amended)
gopher://marvel.loc.gov/11/copyright
To receive legal advice, consult a lawyer.
Eric C. Putnam
> Hold it here. The Kender race is an idea -- copyrights don't protect
> ideas.
You're right that copyrights don't protect ideas AS SUCH. I can publish
books featuring a race of short people that have no concept of personal
property. But "kender" have been meticulously defined in published works
copyrighted by TSR ("All Rights Reserved," remember?). If I start writing
about "kender," and describe them as having the same characteristics TSR
attributes to them (which is what this thread's originator was asking
about), I'm unlawfully deriving from TSR's copyrighted material. Even if
I take my unnamed race of short people and stick them with all of the
"kender" characteristics, I'm still on shaky ground, legally.
Try publishing a novel featuring Ewoks without Lucasfilm's consent. Try
publishing a role-playing game featuring Hobbits and Ents without the
consent of J.R.R. Tolkien's estate. Try drawing a cartoon strip featuring
a precocious, introspective six-year-old and his toy tiger, which comes to
"life," without Bill Watterson's consent. They're all just ideas...but the
ideas have all been fixed in protected media, and have thus passed the
stage of being ideas AS SUCH.
To learn more about copyrights, consult the following sources:
Ten Big Myths About Copyright Explained
http://www.clari.net/brad/copymyths.html
Intellectual Property Primer
http://www.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/ip-primer
17 USC ss 101-803 (Copyright Act of 1976, as amended)
gopher://marvel.loc.gov/11/copyright
To receive legal advice, consult a lawyer.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Jason Hatter
: Hold it here. The Kender race is an idea -- copyrights don't protect
: ideas.
Tell that to the people who own the rights to Tolkein's works.
The Elven race as described by Tolkein is copyrighted. The elven race as
described by TSR is copyrighted. The elven race as described by Wendi &
Richard Pini is copyrighted. The elven race as an IDEA is not. ergo,
the kender race as described by TSR is copyrighed. The IDEA of a race of
short kleptomaniacs is not.
Jason
Berg
: : The race "kender" is probably also the subject of a copyright by TSR, by
: : dint of its inclusion in TSR-owned fiction and gaming books.
: How do you "copyright" a make-believe race?
: Trademark them, yes. Copyright them, no.
Wrong. You can trademark the name, but the description of the
race can be copyrighted. So the word 'kender' can be trademarked. The
fact that they live on Krynn, are sticky-fingered, and utterly fearless,
is an expression of an idea, and the expression is copyrighted.
--
Berg Oswell, SP2 & Clam Cluster, KoX
2nd Assistant Inquisitor, ARSCC
Email: be...@mail.eskimo.com
"Murphy was an optimist"
Ratty
AFAIK,
Text can be copyrighted.
Ideas can be patented.
Logos (eg "Microsoft") can be trademarked.
So the description of the elven race is copyrighted.
If you use the ideas in a work of your own but do not
repeat the text, it's a case for the lawyers (lots of
cases, eg Apple Computers vs Microsoft).
Ratty
Andrew Gunnesch
Then I suppose that this begs the question:
What would be the legal status of a work that someone created, which starred
members of a race of short kleptomaniacs called Foobars ? If the race differed
in several areas from the TSR-described Kender, then presumably it would be OK.
But what if the Foobars were described very similar to the TSR version, but
not referred to as Kender? Would TSR have a legal challenge to demand damages?
andrew gunnesch
I do not speak for Ford Motor Company, Silicon Graphics, Ajilon Services
(formerly Adia Information Technologies). This posting is not endorsed by
any of the above companies.
John Merrall
: Then I suppose that this begs the question:
: What would be the legal status of a work that someone created, which
: starred members of a race of short kleptomaniacs called Foobars ? If
: the race differed in several areas from the TSR-described Kender, then
: presumably it would be OK. But what if the Foobars were described very
: similar to the TSR version, but not referred to as Kender? Would TSR
: have a legal challenge to demand damages?
If that were the case, then wouldn't Tolkien's estate be entitled to
damages for T$R's use of hobbits (sorry, "halflings") and ents (sorry,
treants")?
And shouldn't Moorcock be entitled to a settlement for T$R's use of
Stormbringer (whoops, sorry, "Blackrazor") in the module White Plume
Mountain? And shouldn't Vance receive royalties for T$R's "Ioun Stones"?
Sorry, I still think it's bull.
Christopher Beattie
> What would be the legal status of a work that someone created, which starred
> members of a race of short kleptomaniacs called Foobars ? If the race differed
> in several areas from the TSR-described Kender, then presumably it would be OK.
> But what if the Foobars were described very similar to the TSR version, but
> not referred to as Kender? Would TSR have a legal challenge to demand damages?
Well, let's take a case in point. Willow.
Now those are as close to Hobbits as you can get without using placenames, and
people. Small people who live a nice rural life away from the trauma of the
world around them.
As long as you don't take anything that can be directly tied to the existing
work (such as living underground with round doors) the ideas are or seem to
be ok.
Jason Hatter
: If that were the case, then wouldn't Tolkien's estate be entitled to
: treants")?
Tolkein's Estate talked with TSR and told them to change the names. If
that's all they asked for, then no, they're not. 8)
: And shouldn't Moorcock be entitled to a settlement for T$R's use of
: Stormbringer (whoops, sorry, "Blackrazor") in the module White Plume
: Mountain? And shouldn't Vance receive royalties for T$R's "Ioun Stones"?
Only if Marvel Comics, and anyone else who has ever
mentioned/created/used vampiric swords in a published work of fiction has
to. As for the Ioun stones, I haven't read the Vance story featuring
them yet, but I belive (from commentary I've seen here) that they
followed the mage in a single file line, and only stored spells. As
such, they are the inspiration for magical stones that circle the
possessors head, granting a wide variety of abilities & benefits to the
possessors, but are not the same. However, I may be wrong about what the
Vance stones can do, so I may be wrong with the rest of it.
Jason
Eric C. Putnam
> John Merrall (ac...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca) wrote:
> : If that were the case, then wouldn't Tolkien's estate be entitled to
> : damages for T$R's use of hobbits (sorry, "halflings") and ents (sorry,
> : treants")?
>
> Tolkein's Estate talked with TSR and told them to change the names. If
> that's all they asked for, then no, they're not. 8)
[SNIP]
Actually, the lawyer for Tolkien's estate probably sent TSR what's called
a "cease and desist" letter. It goes like this: "stop doing what you're
doing, because if we sue you over it, we're bound to win. Here's why...."
"Why" probably involved the fact that Tolkien's estate still held the
copyright on both "hobbits" and "ents."
John Edwards
said:
-> And shouldn't Moorcock be entitled to a settlement for T$R's use of
-> Stormbringer (whoops, sorry, "Blackrazor") in the module White Plume
-> Mountain? And shouldn't Vance receive royalties for T$R's "Ioun Stones"?
Actually, the original Diety & Demigod's book had the Elric
mythos in it, including Elric and stats for Stormbringer.
Apparently, only one run of the books were printed before
Moorcock (or perhaps someone else) put a stop to it. I was lucky
enough to pick up a second-hadn copy that was in perfect
condition about 8 years ago.
John
Eric C. Putnam
> The ever-so-wise John Merrall (ac...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca) once
> said:
>
> -> And shouldn't Moorcock be entitled to a settlement for T$R's use of
> -> Stormbringer (whoops, sorry, "Blackrazor") in the module White Plume
> -> Mountain? And shouldn't Vance receive royalties for T$R's "Ioun Stones"?
>
> Actually, the original Diety & Demigod's book had the Elric
> mythos in it, including Elric and stats for Stormbringer.
> Apparently, only one run of the books were printed before
> Moorcock (or perhaps someone else) put a stop to it.
[SNIP]
Either Moorcock or Chaosium (who also had the Cthulhu mythos removed,
IIRC), unless there was another company with the gaming rights to Elric
etc. at the time. The cases John M. brought up just go to show that the
definition of "blatant copy" varies from law firm to law firm; either
that or the author in question was sufficiently amused that the lawyers
were told to stay quiet. Either way, apparently neither Blackrazor nor
Ioun Stones raised enough hackles to net TSR a threat letter. And it's
already been pointed out that Vance's "Ioun Stones" do have some
significant differences from TSR's. (IMHO Vance would probably get a lump
settlement too. :) )
Eric C. Putnam
> Originally, Chaosium gave TSR permission to use the Elric and Cthulhu stuff in
> the Deities and Demigods. They changed their minds after the first printing.
[SNIP]
> TSR got specific permission to use the ioun stones in AD&D. Otherwise, there
> would be no doubt about copyright infringement.
Thanks for clearing this up! Out of curiosity, where did you hear about the
ioun stones? I had thought I was reasonably well-informed.... :)
Brett D Altschul
Eric C. Putnam <epu...@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote:
>Either Moorcock or Chaosium (who also had the Cthulhu mythos removed,
>IIRC), unless there was another company with the gaming rights to Elric
>etc. at the time. The cases John M. brought up just go to show that the
Originally, Chaosium gave TSR permission to use the Elric and Cthulhu stuff in
the Deities and Demigods. They changed their minds after the first printing.
(Ironically, my (second printing) copy still has the authors thank-you state-
ment to Chaosium for the material that was no longer in the book.
>definition of "blatant copy" varies from law firm to law firm; either
>that or the author in question was sufficiently amused that the lawyers
>were told to stay quiet. Either way, apparently neither Blackrazor nor
When I first saw Blackrazor, it did look rather like Stormbringer to me, but
it's not close enough to prove derivation and it's not exactly in a prominent
place. (I doubt there are people paid to look through every TSR product for
copyright violations.)
>Ioun Stones raised enough hackles to net TSR a threat letter. And it's
>already been pointed out that Vance's "Ioun Stones" do have some
>significant differences from TSR's. (IMHO Vance would probably get a lump
>settlement too.
TSR got specific permission to use the ioun stones in AD&D. Otherwise, there
would be no doubt about copyright infringement.
Demon Sultan of Khaipur
Brett Altschul
Jason Smith
to this thread, so I apologise if this has already been said. Come to think
of it, this has little to do with copyright, but what the hell...
For a very long time now, Kender have been considered as this absent-minded
thief stereotype, but I think it's time to clear things up. What *really*
pisses me off is that the new TSR game developers thought "oh, Tasselhoff was
a kleptomaniac...yeah, so that means all kender are...of course...", when
that really isn't true. The whole concept of the "handler" (2nd edition's
lame attempt at categorizing kender into a class; the handler is basically
what Tasselhoff was) stinks.
It only began as a result of a single player, uh...I can't remember his name
now, but he played the original Tasselhoff in Tracy Hickman's Dragonlance
campaign. It was *his* unique touch that made Tasselhoff such a cool
character, just as Terry Phillips' unique touch made Raistlin. People often
mistake that Tasselhoff was *a* kender, and NOT *the* kender. You'd think
that there would be a lot more variety in any society. To say that all
kender are absent-minded, curious thieves would be like saying Belphanior
(from Thomas Miller's "Adventurers") was a typical high elf! (in case you're
not familiar with the Adventurers, then Belphanior was an insane CN high elf
f/m/t that caught severed heads, ate the hearts of some of his enemies, and
plucked out his own eye to replace it with an evil artifact)
That brings me to the most annoying point: Why can't kender be clerics or
magi? You'd think that *some* would have the attention span to, at least,
dabble in those careers. A kender mage would kick ass :)
| _ ( _ _
|(_|_)(_)| ) Sometimes known as s000...@mugc.cc.monash.edu.au
) -=-=-=- or http://www-mugc.cc.monash.edu.au/~s0000001
Jason Hatter
: That brings me to the most annoying point: Why can't kender be clerics or
: magi? You'd think that *some* would have the attention span to, at least,
: dabble in those careers. A kender mage would kick ass :)
Well, in Dragonlance terms, Kender can't be mages because they're not one
of the Godly races. They are one of the Greystone races (along with
gnomes and (I think) dwarves). However, I was of the opinion that Kender
COULD be clerics. Specifically, priests of Fizban. However, that may be
my DM's decision...
Jason
shaune...@gmail.com
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> If I remember right, a kender can be any class. In every sourcebook, one of the phrases that stays the same, is guidelines, not rules. Personally my group has picked different agreed upon rules we are going by. The DM having final say. My kender actually became an extremely powerful mage.
>
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.dreamwidth.org
Anonymous Jack
> > If I remember right, a kender can be any class. In every sourcebook, one of the phrases that stays the same, is guidelines, not rules. Personally my group has picked different agreed upon rules we are going by. The DM having final say. My kender actually became an extremely powerful mage.
> >
>
FIFY :)