copywrited kenders
Eric C. Putnam
> Hi
[SNIP]
> Just use all the terms and assume no copywrite exists until you are informed
> that it does.
That would be a mistake, and it could lead to a lawsuit. Copyright exists
by default on all published matter, by law. Only if a writing is given into
the "public domain" is it free of copyright protection. Contrary to the
advice given above, assume copyright DOES exist until you are informed it
does not. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for law-breaking in any
American court, particularly courts that deal with intellectual property.
Nothing published by TSR is in the public domain. In fact, if you look
carefully enough, you'll find the copyright notice in everything
published by TSR (it's usually on the title page).
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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."
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vernon Everett
>> 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.
I think the original question was a stupid one in the first place. What we in
army used to call a "kit-bag question"
When we were told to appear on parade, it was either with or without a kit
bag. (a rather heavy bag of crap)
If no mention of the bag was made, we would assume no kit-bag, and if kit-bags
were expected we would say "you never said so" in all innocence. ]:-)
But then every now and then we would be told to appear on parade, and some
absolute clod would say "with or without our kit-bag", to which the reply was
always "with", because the rank had been reminded of another way of being a
bastard.
Likewise with TSR. Show them something that maybe they havn't copywrited,
patented, patented or otherwise restricted, and they will go "yes, of course
we have copywrite on that", and then run off to their copywrite lawyer to find
out about copywriting it.
Just use all the terms and assume no copywrite exists until you are informed
that it does.
Cheers
Vernon
James A Renn
> On Sun, 21 Jan 1996, Vernon Everett wrote:
>
> > Hi
> [SNIP]
> > Just use all the terms and assume no copywrite exists until you are informe
> > that it does.
>
> That would be a mistake, and it could lead to a lawsuit. Copyright exists
> by default on all published matter, by law. Only if a writing is given into
> the "public domain" is it free of copyright protection. Contrary to the
> advice given above, assume copyright DOES exist until you are informed it
> does not. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for law-breaking in any
> American court, particularly courts that deal with intellectual property.
>
> Nothing published by TSR is in the public domain. In fact, if you look
> carefully enough, you'll find the copyright notice in everything
> published by TSR (it's usually on the title page).
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> 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."
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
I'm curious, why not just use another term for the kender? In my currenr
FR campaign I use "Littler". I've never liked the word halfling, half of
what? And since I've never liked Tolkien (sp?) much Hobbit didn't fit
either. The book -The Road West- used the term and I liked it, a good
read BTW. Just a thought.
+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
Lord James Edmund of Aberedw, Barony of Stonemarche, East Kingdom
Device: Azure, a hand in benediction, and on a chief invected
argent three decrescents azure
mka: James Alex Renn
Address: 310 E. High St. 2nd Flr, Manchester NH, 03104
Email Address: ja...@isaac.stonemarche.org
FACTORUM TUORUM CONSCIENTIAM ACCIPITO
Aardy R. DeVarque
>On Sun, 21 Jan 1996, Vernon Everett wrote:
>
>> Hi
>[SNIP]
>> Just use all the terms and assume no copywrite exists until you are informed
>> that it does.
>
>That would be a mistake, and it could lead to a lawsuit. Copyright exists
>by default on all published matter, by law. Only if a writing is given into
>the "public domain" is it free of copyright protection. Contrary to the
>advice given above, assume copyright DOES exist until you are informed it
>does not. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for law-breaking in any
>American court, particularly courts that deal with intellectual property.
...And the existence of the Berne Convention and the UCC mean that it's
*not* an excuse for non-Americans, either.
Aardy R. DeVarque
Feudalism: Serf & Turf
Eric C. Putnam
> I'm curious, why not just use another term for the kender? In my currenr
> FR campaign I use "Littler". I've never liked the word halfling, half of
> what? And since I've never liked Tolkien (sp?) much Hobbit didn't fit
> either. The book -The Road West- used the term and I liked it, a good
> read BTW. Just a thought.
You can get away with pretty much anything as long as you don't publish
it and/or try to make money off of it. These threads were spawned (IIRC)
when somebody asked about writing a piece of fiction featuring kender and
publishing it.
TSR won't crack down on home campaigns. (They can't, and they wouldn't
want to try anyway.)
Warren Konitshek
: On Sun, 21 Jan 1996, Vernon Everett wrote:
: > Hi
: [SNIP]
: > Just use all the terms and assume no copywrite exists until you are informed
: > that it does.
: That would be a mistake, and it could lead to a lawsuit. Copyright exists
: by default on all published matter, by law. Only if a writing is given into
: the "public domain" is it free of copyright protection. Contrary to the
: advice given above, assume copyright DOES exist until you are informed it
: does not. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for law-breaking in any
: American court, particularly courts that deal with intellectual property.
: Nothing published by TSR is in the public domain. In fact, if you look
: carefully enough, you'll find the copyright notice in everything
: published by TSR (it's usually on the title page).
: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
: 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."
: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Okay, I am not a lawyer (thank God), but I have an idea about copyrights.
My friend and I, pretty soon are beginning our book (more like a
series)... Here it is: Copyrights can't be applied to general things.
God, or Satan or Lucifer is too general and too "famous" to be
copyrighted. Anything in greek mythology can't be copyrighted (I don't
think) because it's also too "famous"... it's too known. On the other
hand, "Raistlin Majere"...that's not an average name, it's clearly an
improvised name, and it's copyrighted. Make sense? Good. Steer cleer,
basically, of anything with a capital letter..that's what I do, it
alwaysa works for me. There are exceptions to that too, I guess. If
something has a capital letter but is just too general, then use it, and
be prepared, or get some info first and whater. Actually, I'm in the
proccess of trying to find (on the net) a file that lists copyright laws.
Does any of my incoherent babbling make any sense? Please reply.
--
Warren Konitshek
phi...@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
Eric C. Putnam
[BIG SNIP]
> You might
> also WWW to www.yahoo.com and start a search. (Actually, that's a pretty
> good idea; I think I'll take my advice. :) )
[LITTLE SNIP]
Here's what I found after a brief search (I visited these sites and
recommend them):
Ten Big Myths About Copyright Explained
http://www.clari.net/brad/copymyths.html
17 USC ss 101-803 (Copyright Act of 1976, as amended)
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/
The Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School (Copyrights)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/copyright.html
US Intellectual Property for Non-Lawyers (pamphlet orders or downloads)
http://www.fplc.edu/tfield/order.htm
The Copyright Website
http://www.benedict.com/