Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
I absolutely agree with this interpretation. They can only have an ownership interest in their incarnation of that created fictional person who happens to have a name that comes from the public domain. Thus all their PI designation can mean is their incarnation. Clark --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Spike, by my reading of the OGL, Product Identity > must be "clearly identified > as Product identity by THE OWNER of the Product > Identity". > > Mongoose can't claim ownership over a public domain > concept (at least not as > the term "ownership" would be applied to > intellectual property). They could > well claim ownership over a specific incarnation of > the character (that's > something that's ownable), they could claim a new > rendering of a public domain > character as PI, they could PI their novel > description of a public domain > character as PI (since that text would be > copyrightable). ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
I dont know abotu that. I have PI'd a name (frankly, I cant remember which one) that clearly had a public domain origin because I meant that name as it applied to my particular NPC. Clark > I agree with you that reasonable people would come > to the conclusion > that the OGL doesn't allow you to successfully shut > public domain > words away from use by OGL publishers. But the fact > that Mongoose > sought fit to include a bunch of public domain words > in its PI > declaration, though, makes me wonder if Mongoose has > a different > interpretation of the license, or if they were > forced to put those > words on the list by their licensor (despite > secretly know that it was > unenforceable). I mean, if we rule out incompetence, > insanity, and > spite for the IP declaration, then there must be > *some* reason by > Mongoose went through these motions, mustn't there? > > Spike Y Jones > > ___ > Ogf-l mailing list > Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org > http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l > ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
Spike, by my reading of the OGL, Product Identity must be "clearly identified as Product identity by THE OWNER of the Product Identity". Mongoose can't claim ownership over a public domain concept (at least not as the term "ownership" would be applied to intellectual property). They could well claim ownership over a specific incarnation of the character (that's something that's ownable), they could claim a new rendering of a public domain character as PI, they could PI their novel description of a public domain character as PI (since that text would be copyrightable). Let's take this outside the OGL concept for a second, and consider IP ownership in general. One cannot claim a trademark over the Norse god of thunder Thor. You might have Thor Autoparts or Thor Motion Pictures, but neither of those would prevent me from writing a story about Thor. You might even be able to trademark Thor Autoparts or Thor Motion Pictures. Neither would prevent me from writing a story about Thor provided that it didn't cause consumer confusion with Thor Autoparts and Thor Motion Pictures. You might even be able to trademark Thor as Marvel has done, but if that trademark exists that trademark extends only to their rendition of The Mighty Thor, not to every rendition of Thor. Insofar as one agrees that PI must be owned to be declared, I think the only reasonable reading of "ownership" is as the term is used in intellectual properties law (although the license does not define the term for us). If a person must have "ownership" of IP to declare it as PI, then he can only defend his PI insofar as someone else misuses something he OWNS. That's just my two cents. There are other constructions of the license (since the sentence speaking about ownership is poorly punctuated, and so it can be read in a rather sketchy manner so that the clause about PI declaration does not extend to the entire laundry list of PI, but only to things that are trademarks or registered trademarks), but I consider those to be labored readings of the license that would be illogical and undermine the usage of the license. If you accept this reading of the license, then the answer about what can be claimed and the extent to which PI protections extend is a matter than can be settled internal to the license itself. Now here's the big curveball. I've mentioned this offlist to Clark. Once you agree not to use somebody's PI, which are you agreeing to: A) not to use PI from the books you directly borrowed from B) not to use PI from all the books in your Section 15 C) not to use PI from ANY book you've ever borrowed OGC from D) not to use PI from ANY book listed in Section 15 of ANY of your products E) even broader disallowance of use of the items designated as PI The license says you agree not to use PI. It doesn't say "you agree not to use PI from the works in your section 15". It says that if somebody gives you OGC and you accept it you won't use their PI period, at all. I think that's a more real concern and potentially an inadvertent hidden "gotcha". Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Clark Peterson wrote: > I'd be surprised if Mongoose even felt you needed to > ask permission to use words that are obviously in the > public domain (and obviously I am only talking about > words and names that are actually in the public > domain). I agree with you that reasonable people would come to the conclusion that the OGL doesn't allow you to successfully shut public domain words away from use by OGL publishers. But the fact that Mongoose sought fit to include a bunch of public domain words in its PI declaration, though, makes me wonder if Mongoose has a different interpretation of the license, or if they were forced to put those words on the list by their licensor (despite secretly know that it was unenforceable). I mean, if we rule out incompetence, insanity, and spite for the IP declaration, then there must be *some* reason by Mongoose went through these motions, mustn't there? Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
GRIM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I wouldnt be 100% about a couple of those terms. Id check with Rebellion Software (Owners of 2000AD from which Slaine derives) as well or first. Since they licensed out the IP and have a hell of a lot more legal clout than any RPG company youll need to watch your step. Theyre nice, reasonable guys though. On some of the other terms on the PI list, I am very clear that they are unique to the Slaine comic and IP. The ones I listed, however, except for spelling variations that are not present in the dictionary I use (but that I have seen used in other sources), I am entirely confident that they derive from public domain sources. If anything, the one doubt I have is the following: They are claiming "Slaine" as IP. The stats of the character are OGC. I go ahead and reuse those exact stats in my product for an NPC. Can I call that NPC Slaine? The name derives from public domain, but is the combination of the name and the stats (the specific interpretation of the character Slaine as far as the rules of the RPG go) legal within the parameters of the OGL? Daniel M. PerezHighmoon Media Productionswww.HighmoonMedia.com Products available at: Digital Book Booth, DriveThruRPG.com, e23, RPGnow.com Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page gif5LCycqajv0.gif Description: GIF image ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
I'd be surprised if Mongoose even felt you needed to
ask permission to use words that are obviously in the
public domain (and obviously I am only talking about
words and names that are actually in the public
domain).
Matt? Are you still on this list?
Clark
--- Brett Sanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 10:09:15AM -0400, Spike Y
> Jones wrote:
> > Possibly the easiest thing to do: Get in touch
> with Mongoose and get
> > permission to use the terms they claim as PI
> (which would mean
> > reproducing their PI claim for the next person
> down the chain to deal
> > with).
>
> That does, however, create a precedence saying you
> felt you NEEDED such
> permission. That makes me feel icky. ("icky",
> though a bit archaic, is
> a perfectly legit legal term :) )
>
> > (Obviously, this last is something one would only
> do because of some
> > type of moral conviction or philosophical position
> or intellectual
> > position related to the OGL: as a strictly
> business decision it
> > doesn't make much sense.)
>
> Business decisions come in a few categories, among
> them "short term" and
> "long term". Mongoose is unlikely to be malicious,
> but legal
> interactions treat heroes and villains the same, so
> you have to think
> long-term about the situation you are creating.
>
> --
> SwiftOne / Brett Sanger
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ___
> Ogf-l mailing list
> Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
>
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
>
___
Ogf-l mailing list
Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
It's my opinion, it is Ryan's opinion, and it is the only reading of the license that makes any reasonable sense. Obviously, like everything else with the OGL, there is no official pronouncement on anything :) Clark --- Spike Y Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 12:04:42 -0700 (PDT) > Clark Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > They absolutely cannot do that (prevent you from > using > > public domain names). They can PI the name, but it > is > > only as to that NPC or person from their product. > > You have every right to use those names you want > to > > use, presuming they have a public domain origin. > > > > Mongoose, or any other publisher, cant "gobble up" > > public domain names by declaring them as PI. If > the > > names are public domain, then you have a source > for > > them (the public domain) aside from Mongoose's > content > > and thus you can use them freely. > > Is this your opinion (which I agree with, by the > way) or has this > been officially declared to be the correct > interpretation of the > ambiguous license terms by WotC and/or a court of > law? > > Spike Y Jones > ___ > Ogf-l mailing list > Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org > http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l > ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 10:09:15AM -0400, Spike Y Jones wrote:
> Possibly the easiest thing to do: Get in touch with Mongoose and get
> permission to use the terms they claim as PI (which would mean
> reproducing their PI claim for the next person down the chain to deal
> with).
That does, however, create a precedence saying you felt you NEEDED such
permission. That makes me feel icky. ("icky", though a bit archaic, is
a perfectly legit legal term :) )
> (Obviously, this last is something one would only do because of some
> type of moral conviction or philosophical position or intellectual
> position related to the OGL: as a strictly business decision it
> doesn't make much sense.)
Business decisions come in a few categories, among them "short term" and
"long term". Mongoose is unlikely to be malicious, but legal
interactions treat heroes and villains the same, so you have to think
long-term about the situation you are creating.
--
SwiftOne / Brett Sanger
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ogf-l mailing list
Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 12:04:42 -0700 (PDT) Clark Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > They absolutely cannot do that (prevent you from using > public domain names). They can PI the name, but it is > only as to that NPC or person from their product. > You have every right to use those names you want to > use, presuming they have a public domain origin. > > Mongoose, or any other publisher, cant "gobble up" > public domain names by declaring them as PI. If the > names are public domain, then you have a source for > them (the public domain) aside from Mongoose's content > and thus you can use them freely. Is this your opinion (which I agree with, by the way) or has this been officially declared to be the correct interpretation of the ambiguous license terms by WotC and/or a court of law? Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
They absolutely cannot do that (prevent you from using public domain names). They can PI the name, but it is only as to that NPC or person from their product. You have every right to use those names you want to use, presuming they have a public domain origin. Mongoose, or any other publisher, cant "gobble up" public domain names by declaring them as PI. If the names are public domain, then you have a source for them (the public domain) aside from Mongoose's content and thus you can use them freely. Clark > Yeah, my reading of the license allows a company to > do what Mongoose (or > Rebellion, the Slaine IP owners) seem to have done > here -- to prevent other > companies from using a load of essentially public > domain terms in d20 > products by declaring the names Product Identity > (whether or not one uses > the game mechanics from the game system). > > -- > > Ian Sturrock > > ___ > Ogf-l mailing list > Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org > http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l > ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
I am with Ryan. I say use them. No need to contact Mongoose. Heck, I recognize those names as public just as much as Arthur or Olympus or Zeus. Now I could make a specific NPC named Zeus and PI that name, but it would only be as it relates to that particular incarnation. Clark --- "Ryan S. Dancey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Personally I have a mind to simply ignore the PI > declaration as it applies to these terms, which > > have obviously been in use before the Slaine comic > or the game, but I wanted to ask for thoughts > > on the matter. > > If you are confident that the terms themselves are > in the public domain, and you would be willing to > defend the use of those terms on that basis if suit > were brought against you for breach of contract, go > ahead and use them. > > Frankly, I suspect in this case you're entirely > correct. > > Ryan > > ___ > Ogf-l mailing list > Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org > http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l > ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
I agree with you 100%. The "Slaine" name they are PIing is their version. They cant PI a name and take that name for all time and in all incarnations. Clark --- Highmoon Media Productions <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am writing a Celtic themed product, and using OGC > material from Mongoose's Slaine RPG. The PI > declaration lists a number of terms they claim as > PI, and I have a problem with it. While some of the > various terms claimed as PI are certainly unique to > the Slaine series, there are others that are part > and parcel of Celtic myth and lit. The following > terms all are claimed as PI and also appear in my > Oxford Dictionary of Celtic Mythology: > > Slaine, Warp Spasm, Tir Nan Og, Fomorian, Red > Branch, Fir Bolg, Enech*, Cromlech. > > Slaine is a character in the early stories. Warp > spasms are traced to Cuchulainn, though he wasn't > the only hero to become distorted during a rage. Tir > Nan Og is the mythical Land of Youth; though the > common Irish spelling is Tir na nOg, Tir nan Og (or > Tir Nan Og in some cases) is the Scottish Gaelic > spelling (as an aside, the book also claims Land of > the Young as PI, and while my dictionary lists only > Land of Youth or Land of the Ever-Young, I have > certainly seen Tir nan Og called Land of the Young > in other academic works). Fomorian is the name of a > mythic Celtic race, as is Fir Bolg (or its alternate > spelling, Firbolg). The Red Branch is an older name > for the Ulster cycle, and a popular name for the > band of warriors based out of Emain Macha. Enech is > the old Irish word for face (as in "saving face" or > honor). Cromlech is another Gaelic word (more used > in Wales and Cornwall, though not exclusively) for > dolmens. > > The only thing I can think of is that I can't use > the Slaine's universe interpretation of these terms, > but I don't see any way in which they could stop me > from using these terms simply as terms; that would > be like me claiming as PI Olympus, Achilles and so > forth. > > Personally I have a mind to simply ignore the PI > declaration as it applies to these terms, which have > obviously been in use before the Slaine comic or the > game, but I wanted to ask for thoughts on the > matter. > > > > Daniel M. Perez > Highmoon Media Productions > www.HighmoonMedia.com > > Products available at: Digital Book Booth, > DriveThruRPG.com, e23, RPGnow.com > > > > > > > > > > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > ___ > Ogf-l mailing list > Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org > http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l > ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 11:44:03 -0700 (PDT) Highmoon Media Productions <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ian Sturrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Yeah, my reading of the license allows a company to do what >> Mongoose (or Rebellion, the Slaine IP owners) seem to have done >> here -- to prevent other companies from using a load of essentially >> public domain terms in d20 products by declaring the names >> Product Identity (whether or not one uses >> the game mechanics from the game system). > > I know some have read the license that way, but that doesn't make > any sense. If that was the case, I could publish an OGL product > with every word in the Oxford English Dictionary and then claim > them all as PI, thus negating their use in further OGl products > without my permission, which is, obviously, ridiculous. There are two problems being conflated here. The first is whether or not I can declare public domain words as PI and thereby prevent you from using them in OGL books that borrow OGC from my book. The second is whether or not I can declare words (public domain or otherwise) as PI and thereby prevent you from using them in OGL books even if you'd never seen my book. Only if you accept the most extreme position in both these cases is the declaring the OED PI tactic a problem for anyone. But some people have argued for more limited readings that *do* make sense and that would still cause you problems if a judge agrees. Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
Ian Sturrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello, Ian. Great job with the game. Love it! Yeah, my reading of the license allows a company to do what Mongoose (or Rebellion, the Slaine IP owners) seem to have done here -- to prevent other companies from using a load of essentially public domain terms in d20products by declaring the names Product Identity (whether or not one usesthe game mechanics from the game system). I know some have read the license that way, but that doesn't make any sense. If that was the case, I could publish an OGL product with every word in the Oxford English Dictionary and then claim them all as PI, thus negating their use in further OGl products without my permission, which is, obviously, ridiculous. My reading of PI has always been that you can protect terms that are unique to the product in question, but public domain terms are, essentially, immune to the OGL because even if someone claimed them as PI, one can always go back to the public domain source. Daniel M. PerezHighmoon Media Productionswww.HighmoonMedia.com Products available at: Digital Book Booth, DriveThruRPG.com, e23, RPGnow.com__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:07:12 -0500 "Tim Dugger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 12 Aug 2005 at 13:47, Spike Y Jones wrote: > > > > This way you are officially declaring the source of your terms, > > > which also indicates that you are NOT using anybody else's PI. > > > > Depending on which reading of the PI terms of the license you go > > with, doing this isn't necessarily going to get you anywhere. > > It will however be the start of a path that indicates that what > somebody else declared as PI is not the source of your use of those > terms. And that will help in case there is an issue over it. Unfortunately, one of the two main readings of the PI terms of the OGL is that you, by borrowing *any* OGC from some other publisher, agree not to use *any* terms that he claims as PI, whether you could source those from elsewhere or not. If the judge doesn't agree with your reading of the OGL, then your sidebar won't give you much cover. Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
> -Original Message- > Spike Y Jones > On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 13:24:39 -0500 > "Tim Dugger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here is an idea - for these terms, since they are public domain, > > include a statement of such. > > > > Example: > > Public Domain terms: From Celtic Mythology, the following terms > > were derived, > > > > This way you are officially declaring the source of your terms, > > which also indicates that you are NOT using anybody else's PI. > > Depending on which reading of the PI terms of the license you go > with, doing this isn't necessarily going to get you anywhere. Yeah, my reading of the license allows a company to do what Mongoose (or Rebellion, the Slaine IP owners) seem to have done here -- to prevent other companies from using a load of essentially public domain terms in d20 products by declaring the names Product Identity (whether or not one uses the game mechanics from the game system). -- Ian Sturrock ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
In a message dated 8/12/2005 11:03:33 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 12 Aug 2005 at 13:47, Spike Y Jones wrote:> I don't recall bibliographies being specifically banned by the OGL.But other people's trademarks and such are, and that can very definitely include book titles, and company names. The OGL forbids you from indicating "compatibility or co-adaptability" with other companies' Trademarks, neither of which a Bibliography does. They are just fine for OGL books. Chris Pramas Green Ronin ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
On 12 Aug 2005 at 13:47, Spike Y Jones wrote: > > Here is an idea - for these terms, since they are public domain, > > include a statement of such. > > > > Example: > > Public Domain terms: From Celtic Mythology, the following terms were > > derived, > > > > This way you are officially declaring the source of your terms, > > which also indicates that you are NOT using anybody else's PI. > > Depending on which reading of the PI terms of the license you go > with, doing this isn't necessarily going to get you anywhere. It will however be the start of a path that indicates that what somebody else declared as PI is not the source of your use of those terms. And that will help in case there is an issue over it. Simply put, and I vaguely remember this being a topic of discussion once before, if somebody declares something that is in the public domain as PI, you are allowed to go back to the public domain sources as being the point from which you derived such terms. ThePublic Domain declaration would specifically indicate that this is what was done in this instance, and specifically declares that the author/publisher was not re-using the PI declared by the other product. Think of it as a CYA measure. :) TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
On 12 Aug 2005 at 13:47, Spike Y Jones wrote: > I don't recall bibliographies being specifically banned by the OGL. But other people's trademarks and such are, and that can very definitely include book titles, and company names. TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 13:24:39 -0500 "Tim Dugger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Slaine, Warp Spasm, Tir Nan Og, Fomorian, Red Branch, Fir Bolg, > > > Enech*, Cromlech. > > Here is an idea - for these terms, since they are public domain, > include a statement of such. > > Example: > Public Domain terms: From Celtic Mythology, the following terms > were derived, > > This way you are officially declaring the source of your terms, > which also indicates that you are NOT using anybody else's PI. Depending on which reading of the PI terms of the license you go with, doing this isn't necessarily going to get you anywhere. > I would also suggest including a bibliography of the books you > used, but the OGL does not allow for that. I don't recall bibliographies being specifically banned by the OGL. Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
On 12 Aug 2005 at 10:09, Spike Y Jones wrote: > > Slaine, Warp Spasm, Tir Nan Og, Fomorian, Red Branch, Fir Bolg, > > Enech*, Cromlech. Here is an idea - for these terms, since they are public domain, include a statement of such. Example: Public Domain terms: From Celtic Mythology, the following terms were derived, This way you are officially declaring the source of your terms, which also indicates that you are NOT using anybody else's PI. I would also suggest including a bibliography of the books you used, but the OGL does not allow for that. TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
I wouldn’t be 100% about a couple of those terms. I’d check with Rebellion Software (Owners of 2000AD from which Slaine derives) as well or first. Since they licensed out the IP and have a hell of a lot more legal clout than any RPG company you’ll need to watch your step. They’re nice, reasonable guys though. GRIM - 'There is no such thing as luck. Only Skillz.' Postmortem Studios at RPGNOW Home of 100 Adventure Seeds Out now! Feast of Crows OGL mass combat -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ryan S. Dancey Sent: 12 August 2005 17:39 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations > Personally I have a mind to simply ignore the PI declaration as it applies to these terms, which > have obviously been in use before the Slaine comic or the game, but I wanted to ask for thoughts > on the matter. If you are confident that the terms themselves are in the public domain, and you would be willing to defend the use of those terms on that basis if suit were brought against you for breach of contract, go ahead and use them. Frankly, I suspect in this case you're entirely correct. Ryan ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
> Personally I have a mind to simply ignore the PI declaration as it applies to these terms, which > have obviously been in use before the Slaine comic or the game, but I wanted to ask for thoughts > on the matter. If you are confident that the terms themselves are in the public domain, and you would be willing to defend the use of those terms on that basis if suit were brought against you for breach of contract, go ahead and use them. Frankly, I suspect in this case you're entirely correct. Ryan ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 09:45:02AM -0400, Tavis Allison wrote: > Given that you've provided alternate spellings or valid synonyms for > most of the PI terms, I don't see what you would lose by choosing those > variants and staying away from the ones they've claimed. Even though > their claims are likely indefensible, how would you profit by getting > into a scrape you could easily avoid? Well, players have a habit if disdaining certain spelling choices. (see magic/magick/magik) Second, while that might cover this situation, it's not an answer to the situation overall. -- SwiftOne / Brett Sanger [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 06:24:23 -0700 (PDT) Highmoon Media Productions <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am writing a Celtic themed product, and using OGC material from > Mongoose's Slaine RPG. The PI declaration lists a number of terms > they claim as PI, and I have a problem with it. While some of the > various terms claimed as PI are certainly unique to the Slaine > series, there are others that are part and parcel of Celtic myth > and lit. The following terms all are claimed as PI and also appear > in my Oxford Dictionary of Celtic Mythology: > > Slaine, Warp Spasm, Tir Nan Og, Fomorian, Red Branch, Fir Bolg, > Enech*, Cromlech. > > The only thing I can think of is that I can't use the Slaine's > universe interpretation of these terms, but I don't see any way in > which they could stop me from using these terms simply as terms; > that would be like me claiming as PI Olympus, Achilles and so > forth. > > Personally I have a mind to simply ignore the PI declaration as it > applies to these terms, which have obviously been in use before the > Slaine comic or the game, but I wanted to ask for thoughts on the > matter. Possibly the easiest thing to do: Get in touch with Mongoose and get permission to use the terms they claim as PI (which would mean reproducing their PI claim for the next person down the chain to deal with). Possibly a bit more difficult but useful to you and the OGL community: Get in touch with Mongoose and convince them of the wisdom of releasing your product from the PI restrictions on terms that were public domain before their book came out. (This may be more difficult than it at first appears, because claiming those terms as PI may have been part of their licensing agreement with the original comic book publisher, so it may be out of Mongoose's hands.) Possibly legitimate thing to risk: Grant Mongoose its PI on the things that you can't source from public domain, and ignore their PI claims on things that you can, but be ready for it to potentially sour relations with Mongoose in the future, and to entangle anyone who borrows OGC from you in any future haggling that might occur. (Obviously, this last is something one would only do because of some type of moral conviction or philosophical position or intellectual position related to the OGL: as a strictly business decision it doesn't make much sense.) Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
Highmoon Media Productions wrote: Personally I have a mind to simply ignore the PI declaration as it applies to these terms, which have obviously been in use before the Slaine comic or the game, but I wanted to ask for thoughts on the matter. Given that you've provided alternate spellings or valid synonyms for most of the PI terms, I don't see what you would lose by choosing those variants and staying away from the ones they've claimed. Even though their claims are likely indefensible, how would you profit by getting into a scrape you could easily avoid? If it were my project, I'd also give a definition or historical sidebar for the similar terms I used which would make it clear that the usage was derived from my own research and reading, not the Slaine comic. Here's a technical question for the list - the SRD lists Product Identity that's not used in the text. Could you tweak Mongoose's nose by saying in your OGL declaration, or somewhere on your lawyer's page, "Tir Nan Og is Product Identity of the Slaine RPG by Mongoose... Tir na nOg is a public domain term derived from centuries of public domain myth and literature" and so forth? - Tavis www.behemoth3.com ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
[Ogf-l] PI declarations
I am writing a Celtic themed product, and using OGC material from Mongoose's Slaine RPG. The PI declaration lists a number of terms they claim as PI, and I have a problem with it. While some of the various terms claimed as PI are certainly unique to the Slaine series, there are others that are part and parcel of Celtic myth and lit. The following terms all are claimed as PI and also appear in my Oxford Dictionary of Celtic Mythology: Slaine, Warp Spasm, Tir Nan Og, Fomorian, Red Branch, Fir Bolg, Enech*, Cromlech. Slaine is a character in the early stories. Warp spasms are traced to Cuchulainn, though he wasn't the only hero to become distorted during a rage. Tir Nan Og is the mythical Land of Youth; though the common Irish spelling is Tir na nOg, Tir nan Og (or Tir Nan Og in some cases) is the Scottish Gaelic spelling (as an aside, the book also claims Land of the Young as PI, and while my dictionary lists only Land of Youth or Land of the Ever-Young, I have certainly seen Tir nan Og called Land of the Young in other academic works). Fomorian is the name of a mythic Celtic race, as is Fir Bolg (or its alternate spelling, Firbolg). The Red Branch is an older name for the Ulster cycle, and a popular name for the band of warriors based out of Emain Macha. Enech is the old Irish word for face (as in "saving face" or honor). Cromlech is another Gaelic word (more used in Wales and Cornwall, though not exclusively) for dolmens. The only thing I can think of is that I can't use the Slaine's universe interpretation of these terms, but I don't see any way in which they could stop me from using these terms simply as terms; that would be like me claiming as PI Olympus, Achilles and so forth. Personally I have a mind to simply ignore the PI declaration as it applies to these terms, which have obviously been in use before the Slaine comic or the game, but I wanted to ask for thoughts on the matter. Daniel M. PerezHighmoon Media Productionswww.HighmoonMedia.com Products available at: Digital Book Booth, DriveThruRPG.com, e23, RPGnow.com__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
