Isn't this whole discussion mooted by the fact that a WotC
representative was quoted about 15 or 20 posts ago as saying words to
the effect of, "Yeah, it's a mistake; we'll have to fix it"?
Spike Y Jones
No, not at all. Ryan is addressing requirements for establishing PI, and just noted that vendors all over the place are misinterpreting the ownership requirements for PI demanded by the OGL. WotC is just one example in the discussion. We could just as easily be talking about Brand X.
Points raised by the Sigil and Ryan harken back to discussions over the last two months framing a few key questions:
a) how is ownership defined for PI?
b) do you issue rights on a work by work basis or is there some anticipated awareness of PI and OGC designations in other works (other than those you borrowed from directly)?
c) does PI grant additional protections not granted by normal IP law, or is it really a bunch of verbiage which adds up to nothing more than pre-existing protections?
d) are other vendors who are leveraging the PI protections on language, concepts, and themes doing so correctly? Or are those PI declarations being mishandled?
Lee
Lee
