Re: [Ogf-l] Re: OGL Logo
Are these commercial or non-commercial products? Print or PDF? Sorry if this is a lot of questions, but like I said in an earlier email it doesn't seem that I have seen anything about this outside of this list. Chris Helton - Original Message From: Tom Caudron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Chris Helton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:29:34 PM Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] Re: OGL Logo I've been notified of use by three or four people (some for multiple products). My intent---and I've been a bit lax on carrying this out---is to add a "Known Prometheus Products" section to the site. Tom Caudron Administrator of the Prometheus Project http://www.PrometheusGaming.com ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Re: OGL Logo
Tom, Out of curiosity, who is using this Prometheus logo/license? Outside of this list I've never seen it. Chris Helton - Original Message From: Tom Caudron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:16:43 AM Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] Re: OGL Logo Clark said, ""Terms" may not change, but enforcement sure does." The Prometheus project violates no part of the OGL of which I am aware, which was the implied claim of the original email to which I was replying. In the context of that comment, I have to stand by my claim. Future kings in the Halls of WotC may not like the OGL and the d20SRD, but the terms of the license are what they are. There exists no term violations to enforce. In other words, if Prometheus violates some arcane misunderstood term of the OGL, so do the rest of you (as nothing Prometheus does is unknown in whole or in part in many other works) and we have all based our respective products/projects on a misunderstanding of the OGL---which would be unfortunate. I tend to believe that amongst all the various lawyers all of us have spoken with, at least one of them would have raised the red flag if the terms of the OGL were somehow dangerously mercurial or if there were enforcement leeway on those terms that made them so. Notwithstanding an out-of-the-blue unfounded claim from WotC (something outlandish like the SCO/Linux lawsuit claims), I do not believe, nor do I think you believe, that WotC has the ability to enforce the OGL in a /wildly/ different manner than that which we understand and expect. Now the d20STL is another matter entirely, and that is the very point that caused me to move to an alternative to that logo/license. Tom Caudron ___ 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] Interesting comments about Creative Commons license
--- Bryant Durrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As opposed to the translucent simplicity of the D20 > SRD. *grin* The SRD is pretty simple: if it is in the SRD then it is open. What could be simpler? Do you actually mean the OGL? Chris Helton ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare ProductIdentity (ThirdPartyBeneficiaries?)
--- avatar of Darkness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Must have missed it in the mess. > So what's your product and what are you worried > about? I'm not worried about anything. I posted to a thread on RPG.net where a person was asking about using the terms "beholder" and "mind flayer" and I said that they couldn't be used because they were the declared PI of WotC. It blew out of proportion there because of someone who doesn't seem to have a firm grasp on the OGL. The conversation then spread here when Darklord posted, and I followed up to his posting here. I've been a member of this list for about two years now. I have designed for d20, the Action! System, and I have developed my own second generation OGL system called Open Core. I am also working on a cross-publisher project with a small group of Fudge publishers. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare ProductIdentity (ThirdPartyBeneficiaries?)
--- avatar of Darkness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm afraid that for the hard questions you're not > going to find much more than intellectual debate > as none of this has ever gone to court to > have any real legal precedent. Ironically, I haven't been speaking in hypotheticals. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare ProductIdentity (ThirdPartyBeneficiaries?)
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > BTW -- I sometimes do switch sides on issues when I > play devil's advocate. > Read the archives and you'll see me do that. In > general, though, I make it > pretty obvious when I'm trying to play on both sides > of the fence to evoke > commentary for either or both sides and promote > intellectual debate on a subject. > Today is not one of those days. This is an inane statement. Point blank, are you a publisher? Yes or No. You see, I am and for me this isn't an intellectual exercise this is a practical matter. You can make your faux intellectual debates if you want but that isn't the nature of the debate on this list. As a publisher and producer of games, I need explicit information and not the intellectual wankery of amatuers. If I want that, I can just go to the Forge. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] The Mysterious Third Type of Content
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > "Open Game Content" means ... ANY WORK COVERED BY > THIS LICENSE... but specifically excludes Product > Identity. Do you mean this section? "'Open Game Content' means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity." Where exactly do you get that 100% of the "work" is OGC from this statement. Because there doesn't seem to be anything in the full text that says that. Of course, your broken up quote of the text doesn't say that either. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] The Mysterious Third Type of Content
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Right, but the license says any WORK covered by the > OGL is 100% OGC except the parts that are PI. Once again, would you please quote the relevant section of the OGL that states this, please? I have re-read the OGL a number of times today, during the course of this discussion and twice since you mentioned it the first time. I can find no reference to this claim. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare ProductIdentity (ThirdPartyBeneficiaries?)
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The license is explicit that for a covered work it's > all 100% OGC except the parts that are PI. And where does it say that the covered work is 100% OGC, except for the parts that are PI? >From section 1(d):"'Open Game Content' means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity." >From section 2: "This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License. You must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that you Use. No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself. No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License." >From section 8: "If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content. " I see nothing in any of those sections that say that product released under the OGL default to being 100% Open Content, unless otherwise spcified. If that were the case, I would think that section 8 (Identification) would be unneeded in the license. Can you please point to the relevant section of the OGL that states "it's all 100% OGC except the parts that are PI." ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [OGF-L] Who can declare Product Identity (Third PartyBeneficiaries?)
--- Weldon Dodd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, you've lost me too. The license says that any > material that is eligible to be PI must be declared > to be PI and must be excluded from OGC to > actually be PI. It must also appear in a work > licensed under the OGL to be > covered by the OGL. Under what conditions can > something be PI without > meeting these conditions and being covered under the > OGL? Ok, again...from section 1(e) of the Open Gaming License this is the definition of Product Identity: "'Product Identity' means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content" This is the definition of Product Identity that I have been using all along. You will notice that since it contains the phrase "and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content" that I do understand that declared PI is a part of PI. What I have been saying, and I am not sure how much more clearly I can say it, is that the PI declaration is not the only PI that exists under the OGL. And then, from section 7 (Use of Product Identity): "You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity." You will notice that this section does not only include PI that has been declared to be so, but actually anything that is defined as PI under section 1(e) of the license. This is all that have have been saying all along. You will notice that by saying this I am not stating that PI does not need to be declared, nor am I saying that there is a gigantic pool of PI anyplace, nor am I saying that there is one true way to declare PI. I have never made those statements, and in fact I am stating what I read in the OGL. None of these stances or staements have changed since I started addressing this subject. Once again, I will state that I am not trying to impose my interpretation of the OGL on anyone and that what I am interpresting only has to do with me. Thanks, Chris ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] Do you have to declare Product Identity
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > You said, and I quote: "These definitions are not > limited to only game > companies, game lines, or any companies that are > involved with the OGL. Read what it > says, and you will see that you are misinterpreting > this. You will notice > that the definition of Product Identity does not > refer to the OGL, or any process > of declaration under it." > > You further said: "Okif you read the definition > of "Product Identity" in > section 1 (Definitions) you will see that there is > no burden of proof or > burden of declaration." > > > You'll see that I have actually quoted you quite in > context. You have > claimed point blank that there is NO REQUIREMENT to > have something declared as PI > for it to be PI. Period. Then it would appear that the matter is just that you either cannot read or are just too dense to be able to interpret what others are saying. Never once have I said that there is no requriement, and those quotes that you are providing don't say that either. > Thanks for saying so. As I quoted you twice above, > on RPG.NET you said > otherwise. Then I tried to ask the membership a > question about contract law and > contractual construction (regarding third party > beneficiaries) and you have > claimed I'm misquoting you and lying about you. > Well, I just quoted you twice > above, in context, saying that there was no burden > of declaration, and then > quoted you once right after saying that there was a > burden. And, no...you did not quote any such thing. My statements that a definition of Product Identity is in the OGL had nothing to do with declaration of PI. They are in conjunction with that. I have never once said that there is no requirement for a declaration of PI because (having read the OGL) I know that it says that one is required. I am saying that the OGL says that that declaration is not the only requirement for something to be PI. It is interesting that you would say that I have stated this, because all of this seems to stem from my quoting from WotC's list of PI from the current version of the OGL. Why exactly would I quote something like that if I felt there was no need for one? But I will again tell you to not put words into my mouth. > Tell Monte Cooke, Green Ronin, and Mongoose that > their sales are suffering because of the OGL. What does this have to even do with anything at hand? ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare Product Identity (Third Party Beneficiaries?)
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > PI overrides fair use. Also the "no compatibility > declarations" clause overrides fair use. Um...no. You can't override a law with a contract or a license. There are legal precedence for this. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare Product Identity (Third Party Beneficiaries?)
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The license says clearly that something must be > identified. Nobody in two different forums has > agreed with you that PI doesn't have to be clearly > identified. Attribute one more statement to me that I have not made and you will understand exactly how well I understand the law. For the last time, I have never said that PI doesn't have to be identified. Saying that there is other forms of PI (as defined be the license) does not mean that you do not have to declare PI. That is just not the only type of PI that a publisher has to be congizent of. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare Product Identity (Third Party Beneficiaries?)
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > That's not the question. The question is whether a > person making said declaration has any LEGAL > STANDING to enforce his declaration under the > license. My godyes! If you violate the definitions of Product Identity under the OGL then you are violating copyright and trademark lawas too. You can't use the IP (intellectual property) that doesn't belong to you. > If not, then people can declare PI stuff all day, > but unless they are a party > to the license they can't sue for breach of > contract. Again, you don't know what you are talking about. The OGL isn't a contract. It is a license. Two entirely different things. And even if it were a contract you still can't ignore clauses in a contract because you think that they don't apply to you. > You are effectively reading it to say: > > PI is any clearly identified trademark and any of a > number of other things > whether or not they are clearly identified. No, I am not. Again you are oversimplifying and attempting to put words into my mouth. Again, stop doing that. However, what you are saying is only a part of what can be Product Identity under the OGL. It is not the only thing, and I am not saying that it is the only thing. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] Do you have to declare Product Identity
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > You've claimed that people don't have to declare PI > for it to be PI. By > default then, anything on the PI list is PI whether > or not it is declared as PI, Again, you are putting words into my mouth to attempt to create a nondefensible stance. You are incorrectly stating my opinion, and I am starting to think that you doing it in a willful and purposeful manner. Please stop. Yes, actually, by default anything defined as product identity by section 1 of the OGL is considered to be product idenity under tha OGL. Thank you for restating what I have been saying from the begining. > making all the things on the PI eligibility list PI > all the time even if they > aren't declared as PI, since it is, by your claims, > the existence of something > on the PI eligibility list and not the PI > declaration itself something that > renders a thing PI. Actually, no. You are still required to make a PI declaration. The OGL says that you have to. We have both pointed this out in our quotes, and I have mentioned it in this thread as well. I have never said that there is no need to make a PI declaration. I have said that, according to the OGL that is not the only thing which defines PI. > And since a thing which is PI > cannot be OGC, then anything > on the PI eligibility list, declared or not, must be > PI, and (by the license) > therefore cannot be OGC. > > It's the logical extrapolation from claiming: > > a) all the stuff on the eligibility list is PI; and > b) you don't have to declare your PI, PI just is PI No it isn't a logical extension, and again you are tyring to put words into my mouth to make your increasingly asinine assumptions seem more credible. Again, I have never once said that there is no need to declare PI. However, you also need to realize that any declaration of copyright and/or trademark is considered to be PI as the OGL defines it. > I attribute the stance to you, or the logical > implications of what you are > concluding about not having to: You can attribute all that you want to me, however that is not what I ahve been saying and you know that it isn't. Creating a "logical" yet extreme example in an attempt to discredit a person's view point is nothing but bad rhetorical skill. > Um. People do this DAILY on RPGNOW. Declaring > 99.9% of the stuff on that PI > list other than the title of the product as 100% > OGC. They declare > characters, spells, creatures, etc. as 100% OGC. Well, that is good for them. Is that a smart business practice? No. Most of those people are only hobbyists who are only selling product because the bar has been so lowered for what it takes to become a "publisher." That does not mean that it is a smart model to follow. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare Product Identity (Third Party Beneficiaries?)
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If you aren't bound by the OGL and you make a PI > declaration, you can do it > all day long until you are blue in the face. Again, you are showing your ignorance of the issues. Have you ever heard of copyright and/or trademark infringement? It happens all the time, and all that the OGL does is hardwire it into the license. And yes, by registering something as copyright or a trademark you are creating product identity, whether you have anything to do with the OGL or not. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare Product Identity (Third Party Beneficiaries?)
--- avatar of Darkness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't think you really need to be bound to the OGL > in order to make a declaration of PI. The license > seems to only indicate that you have to > be the owner of the PI in order to make that > declaration. On the other hand, the license does > require a 'clear declaration' of that PI. > Obviously the clearest declaration is inside the > work itself but some form of mass publication > could be ruled as sufficient. I'm not really sur what Darklord is claiming, because the longer he argues the less it seems to me that he seems to even understand what the OGL is about. But what you said above is what I am tryign to say. You don't have to be bound by the OGL to make a declaration of PI. Basically if something has been copyrighted or trademarked, that makes it a viable Product Identity as the OGl defines it. Which means that it is of limit. As long as something meets the definition of Product Identity by the OGL it is PI. One of the things that Darklord seems to be missing are the uses of the cunjunction "and" in the license. These definitions of PI are not either/or, but instead they are a list of different objects. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] Do you have to declare Product Identity
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > CJH -- if you think that, even if people don't > declare spell names, creatures, etc. as PI for > them to be PI then you aren't borrowing much OGC any > time soon. Because your default assumption is that > those things are ALWAYS PI, whether or not they > are declared as PI, and whether or not the person > who owns the IP is a user of the OGL. Thank you for taking the time to bother reading anything that I have said. (That was sarcasm by the way.) I haven't said anything of the sort, and claiming that I have isn't going to discredit what I am saying. I have never said that my default assumption is anything of the sort. Where have I said that things are "always PI"? What I have done is, gee, listed what the OGL defines as Product Identity. You however patently refuse to quote or site anything to back up your ideas. I am starting to doubt that you have even read the OGL completely. > In short, almost anything you'd want to borrow will > be 100% PI all the time even if it is clearly > identified as OGC. This just goes to show that you don't know what you are talking about. This is an indefensible stance, so I am not going to both with addressing it. > It runs 100% contrary to the entire intent of the > license, which is for people to divide covered works, > as they see fit (provided that they don't declare as > PI something they don't own), into OGC and PI and > license you the OGC. Wow. You really don't understand the workings of the OGl, do you? This statement shows that you don't understand the OGL at all. The "entire intent" of the OGl has nothing to do with any division of covered worksit is a royalty-free license that allows you to use copyrighted materials that are released under the OGL. That is all that the OGL is. Now the rest of your comments fall into place. > People can declare ANYTHING they own on that PI > eligibility list as 100% OGC. Yes, and that would be a stupid thing to do because it goes contrary to the protections that you would seek under copyright and/or trademark law. Again, this is a non-statement and there is no point in adressing it. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare Product Identity (Third Party Beneficiaries?)
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > No, it really doesn't address the scope at all. It > just says that PI declared as PI is PI. That doesn't > answer the key question: Can you please quote the section of the OGL where it says what you are trying to say it says? You can believe my reading or not, however the OGL supports what I am saying about Product Identity. Issues of back cover blurb fonts and the such are nothing but nigglings to try to prove a point by moving to its illogical extreme. Definitions of whether or not Product Identity existing outside of the OGL is irrelevant, if you are publishing under the OGL that is the legal definition that you have to use. There is nothing in the license itself that says anything about having to declare PI, that is defined by section 1 of the license. Look, dismiss my interpretation all that you want. All that I am doing is basing this only on my reading of the document at hand. Frankly, as a publisher, I would rather have a conseervative interpretation that doesn't bite me on the ass than something that can open me to potential liability, with the end result of having to destroy product or open myself to possible litigation. I'm not asking anyone to take my definition of the OGL, and I don't really care if you don't. However, you have not created any reasonable doubt to cause me to have to rethink my interpretations. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare Product Identity (Third Party Beneficiaries?)
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > However, there's nothing saying explicitly that PI > has to be declared by anyone in particular. I was > thinking that you had to be a party to the contract > to declare PI, but then I asked myself this > question: can a third party beneficiary declare PI > without actually being a party to the contract > or an assignee. Like I told you on RPG.net (and I really don't want to se this whole thing explode again), if you read the definition of what constitutes product identity in the OGL it goes beyond just a declaration of your individual PI in a product. >From the definitions section of the OGL: "'Product Identity' means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content" It includes declarations of PI from other game producers, but it also means so much more. Particularly when taken in conjuction with Section 7 (Use of Product Identity): "You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity." The emphasis should be put on "You agree not to use any product Identity" as all of the rest is just icing. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] How much is "too much" for derivative works?
--- "Michael P. Hopcroft" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > RThe message is clear: if you donot have access to a > multi-million-dollar IP lawyer, you should not be in > any sort of > creative enterprise. In other words, if you haven't > already made enough > money to defend yourself against an agressive and > frvolous lawsuit, get > out of business NOW. And never come back. No, that's not what its saying at all. It is saying that people need to be responsible and respectful of the IP of others. Just because one person has spent a lot of time and effort in creating something new and cool, that doesn't mean that someone else can just come along and take it and profit off of it. I know that as a writer I don't want the money taken from my wallet by some so unscrupulous as to steal what I have created. And I would think that as a publisher you wouldn't want that either. If you are going to steal what someone else has created, you deserve what you get. Of course, I am speaking from the viewpoint of being a creator. ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] How much is "too much" for derivative works?
--- "Ryan S. Dancey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Relevance: When considering "how much of a game > system can be used without permission", the answer > might soon be "virtually none". But if you are going to be respectful of copyright and intellectual property of others, that should have been the answer all along. Which was proven by your two examples from music...not to mention all of the *other* lawsuits that resulted from illegal sampling in music. Game publishers are lucky that no one has used those cases as a precedent in their own anti-copyright lawsuits for their works being "sampled" by other publishers. ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
