Re: [Ogf-l] "Opening" Closed Games
On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 00:45 -0500, Tim Dugger wrote: > On 6 Sep 2006 at 21:29, Exile In Paradise wrote: > > > Dear Open Game Gurus, > > I would like to discuss a real-world issue I am > > wrestling with. > > > > I am a collector and fan of a game system published > > from 1980-1994 by a publisher that is long since > > gone. > > First and foremost, you need to retain the > services of a lawyer who specializes in copyright > & trademark issues. You are quite likely going > to need one. Oh yeah, I have mentioned that to the other folks who were interested in this idea. > While game rules themselves are not copyrightable, > tables are NOT game rules. > They may be a specific expression of a game rule, > but they are not rules themselves, and are thus > copyrightable. That's what I was wondering, especially if the rule incorporates the table or formula into its expression of the mechanic. I can easily see where tables that contain "setting" results or what is colloquially called "fluff" are copyright and thus "out of scope" for what I am talking about... but what about data tables that are purely formula based that have no use outside of the application of the rule that references the table. How do you copyright a table to convert Celsius to Fahrenheit, or some other expression of a formula? If you make it a graphic, sure that is copyrighted, but the formula the graphic is based on can't be. If a rule is unusable without the table it refers to, or the table is gibberish without the rules that describe the usage, then is that really saying the table is not rules? Does the "mechanic" or "rule" incorporate the data needed to express the rule in game terms? If the rule is "Cross reference the Celsius to Fahrenheit table to help determine air density to calculate bullet velocity", then it seems the formula or content of the table is *part* of the mechanic. I don't know if that is how things really work in the insane world of lawyering, which is why I was asking about tables. It's hard to describe exactly what I mean here, I suppose. If it doesn't make sense with that lame example, just skip it I suppose and I will let Legal, Beagle, and Eagle, LLC worry about it if things get that far with this idea. > Any attempts to recreate those tables, or to > create new tables that are similar in look, feel, > and use could be considered the creation of a > derivative work, and thus a copyright violation. If that is the case, every game with a table that gives results based on dice rolls could be a "look, feel, and use" violation waiting to be sued on. Although, this is a *key* bit of help. Specifically, the mention of derivative work reminded me to refresh my understanding of that. So, out to copyright.gov we go. Reading it, it gave me an idea. The right approach may be to re-approach the original author of the game, and try to work a permission to prepare a "derivative work" designed to be released into the Open Game realm, minus the setting information. If that is agreeable, then it becomes a review and approval bit. Maybe that would be an even better last-ditch attempt. Thanks for the mental jog. Previous approaches to the author have been more in the lines of them doing the releasing. But, if we could get a permission so that the fan community could do the preparation and releasing, then that might be acceptable to all sides. Anything is worth a shot or else the game itself just sort of dies away. > It doesn't matter if you are attempting to fix a > "flaw" in the tables or not, the end result is going > to be what matters here. True, and I understand your concerns... on and off list. Derivative work issues have already come under discussion between the people interested in this project, but not from the perspective I mentioned above. I think I will chase that next. Or I may get disgusted with the whole sorry state of copyright affairs related to a dead and gone game company and chuck the whole idea. I am not a lawyer and never really wanted to be. Thanks for the responses, this is the kind of sanity checking (and inspiration) I was hoping for. -- Robert "Exile In Paradise" Murphey You are magnetic in your bearing. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] "Opening" Closed Games
On 6 Sep 2006 at 21:29, Exile In Paradise wrote: > Dear Open Game Gurus, > I would like to discuss a real-world issue I am > wrestling with. > > I am a collector and fan of a game system published > from 1980-1994 by a publisher that is long since > gone. First and foremost, you need to retain the services of a lawyer who specializes in copyright & trademark issues. You are quite likely going to need one. While game rules themselves are not copyrightable, tables are NOT game rules. They may be a specific expression of a game rule, but they are not rules themselves, and are thus copyrightable. Any attempts to recreate those tables, or to create new tables that are similar in look, feel, and use could be considered the creation of a derivative work, and thus a copyright violation. It doesn't matter if you are attempting to fix a "flaw" in the tables or not, the end result is going to be what matters here. 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] "Opening" Closed Games
Dang. See what happens when the list comes to life? On 9/6/06, Exile In Paradise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dear Open Game Gurus, I would like to discuss a real-world issue I am wrestling with. Robert, you need one of three things: (1) A statement from the copyright holder that your rules-only work is not infringing, (2) A lawyer who will take a retainer to defend your new game as legally distinct, or (3) an acceptance of possibly losing your house in a lawsuit. The OGL, like the GPL, can do nothing to help you do something with someone else's work. Freeciv could just have easily have been a closed-source game, with regards to it actually being written. Copylefft works great forward-going -- but it doesn't do anything the other way. As to your actual problem -- you'll find some on this list who say it's entirelly legal (it is kind of), and others who say a game has a distinct legally protectable character copyright (it doesn't really [all the time], but you'll need a lawyer to prove it.) If you do decide to re-write this game you wish, I'd hope you will use the OGL. Unless you're writing for an established game that prohibits it, there's no reason not to use the OGL. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
[Ogf-l] "Opening" Closed Games
Dear Open Game Gurus, I would like to discuss a real-world issue I am wrestling with. I am a collector and fan of a game system published from 1980-1994 by a publisher that is long since gone. Last year, in an net forum, the copyright holder himself stated that he has no interest in the "games" anymore, but is continuing to develop the "setting" for his own undisclosed purposes. The original publisher has been approached several times since 1994 and asked if they would consider releasing the games as (in order) public domain, GNU open documents, Creative Commons, and Open Game License. Each time, and for each license idea, the answer has been "no" or silence. Meanwhile, every (rare) newcomer to the game asks the same three questions: FAQ#1: "who owns the copyrights?" FAQ#2: "where can I get the books?" And when they find the books are so rare they never even appear on eBay anymore, the famous: FAQ#3: "can someone send me PDFs of the books?" With the publishers own admission of apathy regarding the "games", and being tired of not being able to fully discuss or republish parts of the games at whim, the idea has occurred to me to try to write, publish, and distribute Open Game versions of the copyrighted games. The setting and trademarks are not considered here. The setting is unmistakable anyway, so its a given that a new setting that allowed the same situations would have to be created. Also, its a given that all artwork and trademark terms would have to be avoided like the plague. The name of the company and some of their product names are some of those very terms which is why they are not listed here. For years the Linux software community has excelled at opening "closed" software... by recreating the closed program as a work/play-alike open version and releasing that. The excellent FreeCiv project is one example of many... its a look and play alike version of the copyrighted game "Civilization" by Sid Meier. I am wondering if the same ideas the Linux folks have used would work for opening closed/out-of-print tabletop games? The OSRIC project leads me to believe so. Here's my thinking that I hope you can all provide a sanity check for: According to a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office memo (FL-108), game "rules" cannot be copyright, only the specific "expression" of the rules. My understanding is that the difference is this: The rules to a game like baseball cannot be copyright. Only my specific description of baseball rules can be. Anyone else is still free to write their own description of the same game in their own words. So, if I go line by line through the text, and rewrite the "mechanics" into my own words, and reorganize the whole thing (based on my own prejudice of how it should have been written ;) I should be able to release the result to the web under an open game license and be reasonably sure I haven't actually broken any law? I realize I could still be exposed to a lawsuit for doing so since Americans can sue each other for no reason at all, much less with cause, but if my understandings of things are correct, I should have a fair chance of winning my side of the case should it come to open legal battle. If this whole house of cards still stands up, then there are some specific places that are not very clear that I could use some advice on. One is numeric data in tables. The game I am interested in "opening" is heavily based on numeric tables. I realize I can't copy them verbatim, but the table data is part of what makes the mechanics work. For example, if I want to check to see if someone has scored a hit during an attack, I have to cross-reference the tables to find part of the result. So, are the tables considered *mechanics* or part of the rules then? Also, what are the issues around reducing the tables down to formula through regression or other analysis, and then using the formula to recreate the tables? If you can prove you have the formula, does it help in court? An example of this issue would be the Experience Points table from a popular fantasy game. I have seen several formula published that will exactly re-create the XP table. Prometheus published one of them under the as-yet-untested Prometheus license. Iron Heroes published the same table, but used a constant that was slightly different than the original formula... so the table *works* the same, but the actual numbers vary a little. But its easy to tell its still the exact same method and progression rates. So, what are the legal gotchas around numeric tables and formula that generate them? Many people have done this regression work on the game in question, and PDFs of formula and creation kits for tables based objects have been floating around the net for years without the original publisher challenging them. The publisher I am interested in has long been rumored to have introduced intentional flaws in their tables to prevent regression... so if I find those and create a new "fixed" table from a sim
[Ogf-l] Re: [Ogf-d20-l] concerned
In a message dated 9/5/2006 8:09:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think you might find that the boys at Atlas andMongoose and Green Ronin agree too. But I wont presumeto speak for them. However, you can let their productsspeak for them--gee, all of them have createdalternate systems or are publishing licensed contentand have moved away from core D&D support. Wow. Whywould that be? While we are doing some core D&D support, most notably in our new line of Bleeding Edge Adventures, Clark is correct that we are putting more weight behind our in-house OGL games Mutants & Masterminds and True20 Adventure Roleplaying. Since they stand alone, they are largely immune to whatever happens with 4th edition and the OGL. Certainly when 3.5 came around, we watched our backlist 3.0 books die a horrible death while M&M sailed on without a hitch. That was not a lesson to be forgotten. Chris Pramas Green Ronin ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] OGC contamination?
Beginning with the obligiatory IANAL. I can't see any reasons why this can't be published as a 100% closed product. The OGL only applies to reuse of the original published product. I would say you are correct, and the original publisher has the right to "rerelease" their original fluff text (which presumably they own the copyright to) as 100% closed content without the OGL attached. They can't withdraw the OGL on the original publication, but they can republish without it as long as they are not using any OGC from anyone else in the republication. The OGL applies only to their original release of their text - if they want to go and reuse the same text and not release it under the OGL, they are entitled to do that - in the same way that Wizards of the Coast can publish the D&D rules in OGL form and then (because they own 100% of the original copyright to it) publish them again in a 100% closed rulebook. The only factor that would prevent this product being 100% closed is if the original company were using OGL sources to write their fluff text - this is the bit to be careful about - do they (for example) reference any monsters from OGL material which could not have been sourced from anywhere else (in other words, monsters invented by another company and then "borrowed" through use of the OGL). If their fluff is absolultely, truly 100% their own and could have been legally published in a standalone format without an attached OGL, then as long as they retained the original copyright I would say they have the legal rights to republish it. The OGL is a licence for a specific release of work, and not equivalent to releasing something into the public domain (something you cannot take back for subsequent releases). Or to put it in a far simpler sentence - I concur with what you have stated below :) - Matt Matt Thomason DancingDryad.com > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ogf-l- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vicki Potter > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 4:04 AM > To: ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org > Subject: [Ogf-l] OGC contamination? > > I maintain that, since the fluff text will be published again by the > original publisher, that company can publish it without having to do so > under the Open Game License. In other words, the text published with our > licensed system would be 'closed', even though identical text published > elsewhere would be 'open.' That being the case, the OGL would appear > nowhere in the product and thus none of the material, including the > licensed mechanics, would be Open. > ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
