[Ogf-l] PI Declarations Licensed Art
If you license artwork using a non-OGL license, and you publish it in an OGL'd work should you: a) declare it as the licensor's PI (on the grounds that the owner has given you the implied authority to note that their product is protected) b) note that it is outside the scope of the license since you are neither the owner of the art and you are also do not possess the rights to declare it as OGC Are the answers changed if the owner of the art gives you permission to declare it as PI? The OGL seems to require that the owner of the PI carry out the PI declaration, but the general question is whether someone acting on behalf of the owner, directly or indirectly as the agent of the PI owner, can make the PI declaration. Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI Declarations Licensed Art
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you license artwork using a non-OGL license, and you publish it in an OGL'd work should you: a) declare it as the licensor's PI (on the grounds that the owner has given you the implied authority to note that their product is protected) b) note that it is outside the scope of the license since you are neither the owner of the art and you are also do not possess the rights to declare it as OGC Are the answers changed if the owner of the art gives you permission to declare it as PI? Just keep it out of your OGC declaration. = Let me be clear: Analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the [national intelligence] estimate [of october 2002]. They never said there was an imminent threat. -- CIA director George Tenet, 2/5/2004, Georgetown University Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. . . . The terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other. -- President George Bush, 3/17/2003, 48-hour warning to Saddam Hussein __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI Declarations Licensed Art
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:43:09 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you license artwork using a non-OGL license, and you publish it in an OGL'd work should you: a) declare it as the licensor's PI (on the grounds that the owner has given you the implied authority to note that their product is protected) b) note that it is outside the scope of the license since you are neither the owner of the art and you are also do not possess the rights to declare it as OGC The OGL seems to require that the owner of the PI carry out the PI declaration, but the general question is whether someone acting on behalf of the owner, directly or indirectly as the agent of the PI owner, can make the PI declaration. Those who believe in closed content that's neither PI nor OGC can exclude artwork from the OGC. Those who don't would have to have the owner of the artwork put a PI declaration within the publisher of the work's own OGC/PI declarations; they couldn't merely declare it outside of the scope of the OGL, since they don't believe there is such a thing. Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI Declarations Licensed Art
In a message dated 2/24/2004 10:05:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Those who don't would have to have the owner of the artwork put a PI declaration within the publisher of the work's own OGC/PI declarations; they couldn't merely declare it outside of the scope of the OGL, since they don't believe there is such a thing Part of my question concerned agency. If a licensor gives you permission to declare something as PI on his behalf (so that you are acting as his agent) is that an acceptable alternative to having the licensor go through the motions himself. I presume that an agent of the PI owner is capable of making such a declaration, much as a guy in a company's licensing department is able to make declarations about PI owned by the company he works for. True? False? Comments? Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
At 05:38 AM 2/24/2004 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I did see what Clark said then and, as I didn't *GET* the reasoning for other people still doing the same thing a long time after the RR, I asked again. However, I'm not going to push the question any more as it just sounds like I'm bashing Clark if I do that (and I certainly didn't intend that). Just because Clark has said he wouldn't do what he did in RR now doesn't mean that others don't look at RR now and use it as an example of how to do PI now. Is this a plausible explanation for others doing PI declaration in the same style as RR? A lot of PI and OGC declarations out there are copycat'ed from other PI and OGC declarations that people figure hey, it was good enough for this other guy. That doesn't mean this is a good practice. When you see a PI declaration that doesn't make sense, you should either ask the publisher if that was what they meant, or just avoid the content. Either they made a mistake and will fix it, or they don't care that the content if crippled (whether crippling was their initial intention) and they don't want to go through the trouble of fixing it. The only way to find out for sure is to ask, politely: Did you really mean to PI such-and-such in your product X? I really think it is derivative of OGC from product Z. If you did mean to, could I have a license to use it in my product Y? Joe ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] Compatibility Declarations OGL Scope
dont forget the d20 stl, if you use it, may also impose restrictions on you. clark --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some have argued that the OGL is scoped only to cover the declared OGC and PI combined, that this is the definition of work. If that's the case, what prevents the author from making compatibility declarations (outside of the safe harbor, using any fair use of trademarks, etc. that may exist outside of the OGL) in sections designated neither as OGC nor as PI? Part of your answer may or may not implicate the question of whether you are responsible for all PI declarations in your section 15 or just those you copy directly from. So, for example, if you copy your game info from Mongoose's OGL Player's Handbook, and if you are only responsible for the PI declarations listed in that volume (not the others listed in the Section 15), and if the OGL is scoped (as some claim) to define the covered work only as the sum of the OGC and PI, then you could get away with compatibility declarations all over the place if they were allowable by normal trademark and/or copyright law. Such declarations might then allow you to make declarations of compatibility with Dungeons Dragons, etc. while still allowing character creation rules (i.e., they would allow you to work outside of the d20 license). There seems to be an internal contradiction in the notion that the license covers a book cover to cover against compatibility declarations, etc., and the notion that the work covered means that you can cherry pick what parts of your book are and are not covered by the license. This is further compounded by the point of view that PI declarations only hold weight over people who copy directly from an original source, rather than deriving information indirectly via some third party product. Is it my imagination, or are people using the term work in 2 or 3 different ways depending on the rights in question, instead of assuming that the term work, in the context of a single copy of the license, has similar meanings throughout. Ideally, it would be great to have 3 types of content plus prohibitions against compatibility, plus protections against PI infringement past one generation of copying, however, some of these things seem like they just must be mutually exclusive of each other. I am pretty sure that this problem was not intended when the license was drafted. And I desperately want to see that there is a way to resolve these anomalies without a redraft of the license. I just haven't been swayed that all these things can be true simultaneously. Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Product Identity does not mean Everything that's not OGC
- Original Message - From: Jim Butler [EMAIL PROTECTED] [snip] I've been continually amazed at the amount of time that Clark (and others) devotes to answering questions on this list. As a *real* attorney, everyone should thank the gods for his patience and time here. And if you don't agree with the advice, then go out and get another attorney's opinion--which you should do anyway if you're going to be publishing work on your own. I'm not amazed Jim, I'm impressed! Very impressed! Nobody *HAS* to write here if they don't want to. However, *IF* anyone in the publishing industry chooses to freely donate a little of their time to give other people advice, I hope that generocity gets repaid somehow. Some people have previously talked about good or bad OGC/PI effecting purchaser decisions, however for me freely given information is a much more likely to get cash out of my pocket into someone elses. Maybe a more important thing to remember than ...if you don't agree with the advice, then go out and get another attorney's opinion... is if you don't like the advice, don't shoot the messenger. David Shepheard ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
