<<That's a little black and white don't you think?
I've always interpreted it to be a context driven thing.
c) the "white out" method is not what WotC intended, the PI usage is a list of terms that you are reminded not to use in the same way that they are used in the same way they're used in the books. "Displacer beast" for example could refer to a variation on the Yeti who's attack teleports you 3 miles in a random direction.
>>
PI is not a reminder. PI is a specific contractual exclusion on usage. Now it either is excluded in the sense that it is merely unlicensed (i.e., the "white out" method) and you can use it if you could normally legally do so without a license, or it is explicitly forbidden. I might even buy a suggestion that the phrase "forbidden terms" is overly narrow, as the PI list includes much more than terms, it certainly includes, in some cases, contextual usage.
Including a list of PI that is not a forbidden items list and which is not a "white out" list, but which instead forbids usages which are, at best, interpreted as vague references to other unnamed products could only be interpreted as a violation of the requirement to clearly identify PI.
Take the term "beholder". If I weren't a long time D&D player there would be no way for me to even fathom that that was a reference to a multi-eyed monster based on its having been listed as PI in a work that doesn't likely even include the term.
A white out list and a forbidden terms list could both exist as simply a laundry list of terms, however, a vague reference to other unnamed works would not clue the licensee in at all regarding the form and nature of the exclusion.
I simply disagree.
If that was WotC's intent and reading of the license, then they horribly botched management of clear PI designation.
<<You'll notice though that most of the PI listed in things rather easy for WotC to defend. It doesn't list 'Hades' it lists 'The grey Wastes of Hades'... not Arcadia but the 'peacable kingdoms of arcadia'. etc.
>>
I'd like to see somebody protect under copyright law the phrase "Grey Wastes of Hades" without a trademark, and particularly when used to refer to a different vision of Hades than WotC's own.
In my opinion that's tantamount to trying to defend:
"The Flaming Inferno of Hell"
Lee.
