Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
From: Tim Dugger 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, list terms here 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. As a mythology dictionary doesn't contain OGC or a copy of the OGL and the author isn't a contributor I don't think the OGL prevents you from mentioning it in a bibliography. You would only be prevented from listing OGC sources (unless you had permission). The original Slaine is public domain and not elegable as Product Identity because it doesn't comply with section 5 (i.e. it was developed over hundreds of years by the Celtic community* and is not original material). However, I would think that the 2000 AD version of Slaine is in some way different to the one from mythology. If 2000 AD give Slaine distinctive clothing and equipment and Mongoose have used all of that equipment in their version, I suppose that they could argue that those enhancements to public domain material are original material and what they are claiming as Product Identity. (i.e. You can use Slaine, but if you depict him as wearing a torc and your mytholgical sources do not back this up, 2000 AD's lawyers can try to use pictures from the comic to get you to reprint your product without mention of the torc.) Personally, if I was on a jury I'd laugh Mongoose and 2000 AD out of court if they tried to say they owned enhancements to Slaine, but what a *real* court would do is anybodies guess. (Given that Stelios from easyJet is using the British courts to assert ownership of the word easy I suspect that a case about ownership of Slaine *might* go either way. Why risk it if there are ways to work around it?) * = While I'm on, I'd like to thank the Celtic community for anticipating the advent of Open Game Content and developing such a good mythology. Not bad work for a bunch of dead wode-wearing guys. ;) David Big Mac Shepheard Webmaster Virtual Eclipse Science Fiction Role Playing Club http://virtualeclipse.aboho.com/ http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/virtualeclipselrp/ ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
From: David Shepheard [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Tim Dugger On 12 Aug 2005 at 10:09, Spike Y Jones wrote: Oops I must be going mad. That was a year ago! Feel free to ignore my reply. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 It also forbids you from using PI, period. And while it's hard to trademark the title of a single book, lots of companies have been claiming their book titles as PI. Also, compatibility and co-adaptability is a pretty vague, reaching phrase. I'm not sure a bibliography couldn't be interpreted as qualifying. If i were being very careful, i think i'd avoid any bibliography entries that included PI. ___ 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 8/15/2005 6:54:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Define "Ownership". * Specifically allow attribution of OGC to specific sources. Oh, there are a helluva lot more reasons than that. They've been discussed ad nauseum. The section with ownership has bad punctuation. There needs to be a more firm definition for "in conjunction with". It needs to be clear as to whether prohibitions against use of PI apply to just one product or to all your future products. It needs to be clear whether the PI you are not allowed to use is the stuff you directly sourced from, the stuff in your section 15, or the stuff in any section 15 of any product you've ever produced. The license should clarify the scope of PI protections. I could rant all day about the vague sections of the license and the things that nominally should be clearer so that there is no confusion about the license. The license was a good idea, but it needed to be more thorough than it is. Lee ___ 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 8/14/2005 10:23:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I will admit that a literal reading of the definition of PI seems to indicate this is the case. My literal reading of the PI definition says to declare PI it must be ownable and you must own it. Meaning you can't declare public domain stuff per se. Really, it seems that either the definition of PI would be changed to disallow claiming public domain materials as PI It already disallows it. It requires OWNERSHIP for declaration. Now, I will agree that the wording of the sentence with the ownership declaration requirements is so poorly punctuated that there is a way to read it such that you have to declare nothing except trademarks and registered trademarks and that all other things are automatically PI. However, this is an extremely labored reading of the document. If some things were automatically PI whether you liked it or not you could never declare them as OGC. It is the declaration process that sifts OGC from PI. It would also be illogical to have to formally declare trademarks and registered trademarks for protection (things you would nominally pretty much want protected 100% of the time), but things which many people want to give away would have to automatically be protected. I therefore think this alternate reading of the PI sentence is extremely labored and I view the PI declaration clause requiring ownership to apply to ALL PI, and saying that ALL PI must be declared and be owned by the declarer. I think that is the only logical reading that is consistent with the clear intent of the license, and that reading does NOT allow for PI declaration of public domain stuff. The only case where you can PI declare public domain stuff is in the form of creatively chosen collections of materials. For example, let's say you went out and scanned lots of books from the 1800s for all the art from your book. You can't copyright individual images (they are public domain), but you CAN copyright a larger collection of them, preventing people from reprinting your collection of images as is. This would NOT prevent people from borrowing one or two of the images, as you cannot claim copyright over them, and therefore your PI claim probably only extends to the intellectual property to the degree that you can declare ownership over it. Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
Guys, maybe somebody cares to cite some IP law on this, but I thought that under IP law you can own a name under only three circumstances: a) it is a trademark of yours b) you can own a name in specific connection with a very distinct character concept, but that ownership is then severed when the name is applied to a wholly distinct character concept c) you can declare ownership over a collection of creatively chosen and ordered names, but that copyright extends only to the collection as a mass and provides no copyright protection to an individual name or two which is borrowed. The barriers to copyrighting a collection are necessarily high, so that I cannot declare copyright over a collection of the 12 most common greek god names. That's more of an observation than a creative selection, and it would be against the public interest as it would disallow me from writing about the Greek gods as soon as any other person has written about them. The PI definition allows for the PI'ing of character names, but requires ownership for PI declaration. Thus, in my mind, PI declarations of names as PI only provides narrow protection for non trademarks as noted above. I think the controlling case law on these issues are those cases concerning copyrightability of phone books and the copyrightability of recipe books. IANAL YMMV Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 08:50:15 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My literal reading of the PI definition says to declare PI it must be ownable and you must own it. Meaning you can't declare public domain stuff per se. So you would agree with some of the posters of the last few days that most public domain words can't be PIed (a position I agree with), but you disagree about the possibility of PIing a name derivable from a public domain source as it applies to a particular character? (That is, since the word Spike is available in the public domain, if there was an OGL Buffy the Vampire-Slayer Game, the publisher wouldn't be able to PI the word Spike as it applied to one of the characters in that series?) 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
In a message dated 8/15/2005 9:16:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So you would agree with some of the posters of the last few days that most public domain words can't be PIed (a position I agree with), but you disagree about the possibility of PIing a name derivable from a public domain source as it applies to a particular character? (That is, since the word "Spike" is available in the public domain, if there was an OGL Buffy the Vampire-Slayer Game, the publisher wouldn't be able to PI the word Spike as it applied to one of the characters in that series?) Read my most recent post on the 3 ways you can claim some copyright over a name. You CAN PI a name as it applies to a very specific character, but then your PI protections extend only to the application of that name to that character. At that point, the name is no longer considered to be per se public domain. By definition, something that is in the public domain is not copyrightable. The usage of a character name is considered to be copyrightable insofar as it appears attached to a specific character. If I create a boxer named Rocky Balboa with a wife named Adrian I'm probably treading on someone's copyright. If I created a mouse named Rocky Balboa who is completely dissimilar from the boxer then that's probably not copyright infringement. If it's copyrightable it is ownable and it is PI'able. However, PI protections are extended only two uses which would be copyright or trademark violations, so if I had the OGL Buffy game and then I ported some rules and called a mouse Spike because he wore a little spikey collar, then I wouldn't be violating PI rules. The name itself is from the public domain and gains any copyrightability only in context, and is PI'able only in context. Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 09:25:08 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Read my most recent post on the 3 ways you can claim some copyright over a name. Your follow-up post arrived just after I sent mine out; oh well. You CAN PI a name as it applies to a very specific character, but then your PI protections extend only to the application of that name to that character. At that point, the name is no longer considered to be per se public domain. Which serves to muddy the water up considerably. Daniel at Highmoon was presented with a problem: He has a book about Celtic stuff and he uses as one of his OGC sources a Mongoose book that is also derived from Celtic sources. Mongoose PI's a bunch of terms in connection with its book, many of which Daniel can source from the public domain. But since those terms as Mongoose uses them are applied to the ways Mongoose used them in its book, then the PI declaration is valid in relation to the way that Mongoose has characterized the terms. So we now run into the problem that Daniel *can* use those terms if he does so in a non-Mongoose manner; that is, if he uses them in such a way that his use is obviously taken from the public domain sources and obviously not taken from the Mongoose source. But since Mongoose itself derived those elements in part from the public domain sources, how is one to determine whether or not Daniel's interpretation of, say, Firbolgs is safely public domain or breachedly Mongoose-derived? Without a brightline test, simply waiting to see if Mongooose decides to send out a cease desist order seems inefficient (especially since a CD letter doesn't settle the matter; it merely forces Daniel to sit down and ask himself the question again to determine whether he can ignore the letter or whether he has to do something). I still say the easiest course is likely to be to get in touch with Mongoose and see what can be worked out. 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
But since Mongoose itself derived those elements in part from the public domain sources, how is one to determine whether or not Daniel's interpretation of, say, Firbolgs is safely public domain or breachedly Mongoose-derived? It seems pretty common sense to me that if they both match the public domain inspired concept that there is no problem. Some of you list veterans may remember this discussion goes way back to my snow ape example in the real early days of the OGL. The question was: can I PI the name 'snow ape' for my monster? Though not a public domain issue, it raises similar issues. I also have a good public domain issue--our Orcus logo. Now the name Orcus is clearly public domain as it is an ancient Roman God of the dead. However, IMHO, the particular bat winged goat guy with a skull tipped wand is TSR/WotC's particular incarnation of Orcus. To me, this is an excellent example of how you can take a public domain idea and create your own expression of it and have something that is PI-able. As a result, I got permission to use that incarnatioin in our logo. Subsequently, we had the logo privately designed and we therefore have a copyright interest as well as a trademark interest in the Orcus logo, and as such we can PI it (and we do!). I still say the easiest course is likely to be to get in touch with Mongoose and see what can be worked out. I think you know my long standing position on just calling and getting permission :) As a general principle, I absolutely think it is the right thing to do, just from a professional courtesy and prevent headaches standpoint (not as a legal requirement). But in this case, to use a few public domain names doesnt seem to be a problem even needing a phone call. Clark ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 10:09:02AM -0400, Spike Y Jones wrote: I still say the easiest course is likely to be to get in touch with Mongoose and see what can be worked out. It certainly would be the easiest course in this case. But: 1) Having to ask permission defeats the purpose of a general license 2) We can't always count on getting replies. There's a lot of material out there already that we can't contact the author on (or won't get a a reply if we do). [And many of us would like to follow the law without regard to whether we would get away with it.] So while talking to Mongoose would solve this specific problem, this instance is highlighting a general case where PI is poorly understood, so the continuing debate seems worthwhile. -- 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 Mon, 15 Aug 2005 12:04:53 -0400 Brett Sanger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 10:09:02AM -0400, Spike Y Jones wrote: I still say the easiest course is likely to be to get in touch with Mongoose and see what can be worked out. It certainly would be the easiest course in this case. But: 1) Having to ask permission defeats the purpose of a general license Well, the PI isn't a general license; it's a list of things that aren't granted in the general license. So long as Daniel scrupulously avoids all references to every one of those terms, even the public domain ones, then he'll have no troubles from Mongoose. It's when he wants to go beyond the terms of the general license (which allows him to use everything else in the Slaine books freely) that permission-granting enters the equation. But I think a lot of times problems are caused when people's PI declarations are both sweeping and sparse: that is they claim more than they need to in order to protect that which they feel needs protection, and they do so in such sparse language (e.g., just a list of words that are potentially public domain without an explanation of what would and wouldn't be considered allowable) that it asks more questions than it answers. If the Mongoose PI declaration had said something like The following terms are considered PI when used in such a way as to be linked to or to evoke similarities to Mongoose's interpretation of the Celtic mythological material in question: [list of terms] the question would never have arisen here. But by simply stating These words are PI; don't use them a can of worms is opened. 2) We can't always count on getting replies. There's a lot of material out there already that we can't contact the author on (or won't get a reply if we do). So while talking to Mongoose would solve this specific problem, this instance is highlighting a general case where PI is poorly understood, so the continuing debate seems worthwhile. In a number of reviews of D20 materials I've written, I've included a statement that one shouldn't borrow OGC from some specific book without first getting in touch with the publisher, since the book's OGC and/or PI declaration is poorly written or problematic in some way. Others on the list go even further, recommending that you write to the originator of Open Content before borrowing it, not as much to ask permission, but just to notify him and give him an opportunity to correct you before you make a mistake (i.e., you can include in your e-mail the section of material you intend to borrow, giving him an opportunity to write back ans say, Before you go to print, you'll want to delete the name 'Drawmij', as that's not Open Content.) 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 Mon, 15 Aug 2005 08:33:03 -0700 (PDT) Clark Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But since Mongoose itself derived those elements in part from the public domain sources, how is one to determine whether or not Daniel's interpretation of, say, Firbolgs is safely public domain or breachedly Mongoose-derived? It seems pretty common sense to me that if they both match the public domain inspired concept that there is no problem. But it seems to me that if they both match the public domain-inspired concept then Mongoose shouldn't have claimed firbolg as PI since they have no ownership grounds. 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
So you would agree with some of the posters of the last few days that most public domain words can't be PIed (a position I agree with), but you disagree about the possibility of PIing a name derivable from a public domain source as it applies to a particular character? (That is, since the word Spike is available in the public domain, if there was an OGL Buffy the Vampire-Slayer Game, the publisher wouldn't be able to PI the word Spike as it applied to one of the characters in that series?) I think that it is possible to PI a name in conjunction with the character that name represents, sure. I just don't think the name in and of itself is the only thing that merits protection. In and of themselves, most names (especially for those that are common or derived from public domain) aren't the thing that people want to protect via PI designation. What they want to protect is the character as a whole; the name is merely a portion of that protected intellectual property. To that extent, PI designations involving names should, in general, be very specific. Perhaps The character/NPC named so and so and any descriptions, mannerisms. . . As far as the IP laws themselves are concerned, it would seem a lot of them are superseded by the OGL. Matt -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Spike Y Jones Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 8:12 AM To: ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 08:50:15 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My literal reading of the PI definition says to declare PI it must be ownable and you must own it. Meaning you can't declare public domain stuff per se. So you would agree with some of the posters of the last few days that most public domain words can't be PIed (a position I agree with), but you disagree about the possibility of PIing a name derivable from a public domain source as it applies to a particular character? (That is, since the word Spike is available in the public domain, if there was an OGL Buffy the Vampire-Slayer Game, the publisher wouldn't be able to PI the word Spike as it applied to one of the characters in that series?) 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
It seems pretty common sense to me that if they both match the public domain inspired concept that there is no problem. But it seems to me that if they both match the public domain-inspired concept then Mongoose shouldn't have claimed "firbolg" as PI since they have no ownership grounds. Thus we get back to my main issue. I understand that Mongoose/Rebellion want to protect their Slaine character (though, let's call a spade a spade here, that Slaine is just Cuchulainn in disguise, but that's neither here nor there) and I don't want to intrude upon that; I do the same thing with my Celtic-themed Bardic Lore series, wherein I PI the name "Aimergin O Mil" (with or without the accents), fully in the understanding that Amergin isthe public domain name of the legendary bard of the Milesians and that I have no claims to the name outside of my particular character. But as you correctly state, Mongoose really has no ownership of words like "Fir Bolg" (or firbolg), "Fomorian," or even "enech," or "cromlech," the last two being the Gaelic word for regular English terms (it'd be like me PI-ing the Spanish version of those words). Their interpretation of some of these terms borrows heavily from myth, as is expected, though it also mixes in new story material unique to the series. Now, if I stay away from these new story elements (which I already do) but want to borrow the OGC that corresponds to some of these new story elements, am I violating their PI or not? En even better example, the Slaine RPG concept of "warp spasms" and the public domain concept of "warp spasms" is entirely the same, both drawn from the stories of Cuchulainn, down to the mutating effects of the spams' rage.If I use the OGC mechanics for warp spasms in the Slaine book, am I violating their PI or not? If "yes" is the answer to both of the above, it may be that the Slaine book, as great as it is, suddenly becomes highly unusable to me except for a few parts here and there, all because of shoddy PI declaration that is in effect limiting expressions based on public domain material. 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 ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
But as you correctly state, Mongoose really has no ownership of words like Fir Bolg (or firbolg), Fomorian, or even enech, or cromlech, the last two being the Gaelic word for regular English terms (it'd be like me PI-ing the Spanish version of those words). Their interpretation of some of these terms borrows heavily from myth, as is expected, though it also mixes in new story material unique to the series. Now, if I stay away from these new story elements (which I already do) but want to borrow the OGC that corresponds to some of these new story elements, am I violating their PI or not? NO. (not in my opinion anyway) Clark ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
I'm reminded of d20 (when used as a trademark) from the SRD. Charles Greathouse --- Clark Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that it is possible to PI a name in conjunction with the character that name represents, sure. I just don't think the name in and of itself is the only thing that merits protection. Problem is, there is no good way to do a designation like that. It is either PI or it isnt. I guess a publisher could say, ...and the name Arthur, but only to the extent that name reflects an NPC unique to this product. I dont know. Clark __ 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
Since the license already defines other terms, it would certainly be useful to have owenership defined for purpses of the OGL in a later version. One of my biggest problems with the license as a whole is that while it avoids unnecessary legalease and is largely human-readable (yay!), it leaves a lot of open questions (and hence this list, apparently). A good first step for a newer version would be tightening up the ambiguous definitions. Unfortunately, this is just me being policy-minded, and doesn't do much for people who are subject to older licenses. However, giving more concrete definitions, and adding those that are apparently needed would at least help to clear up the grey area where the OGL and the murky waters of IP intersect. I don't know why I'm suggesting this. I mean, people like me (lawyers) pretty much make our money off of interpreting the grey areas. I must be a traitor to the profession. :) Matt -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Spike Y Jones Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 4:11 PM To: ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 12:30:43 -0500 Matthew Hector [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As far as the IP laws themselves are concerned, it would seem a lot of them are superseded by the OGL. Yes, indeed. The OGL is a license that allows you to make use of some copyrighted material that you might not otherwise have access to, in exchange for giving up some of the other IP rights you might overwise have. In some situations, other IP laws can be a part of OGL discussions (such as the whole question of what constitutes ownership for the purposes of being able to make a valid Product Identity claim) but at other times they can only provide analogies and parallels because users of the OGL agree not to play by all the IP laws that pertain to the outside world. One of the tricky things is knowing when one stops and the other starts. 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 Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:26:25 -0700 (PDT) Charles Greathouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Problem is, there is no good way to do a designation like that. It is either PI or it isnt. I guess a publisher could say, ...and the name Arthur, but only to the extent that name reflects an NPC unique to this product. I dont know. I'm reminded of d20 (when used as a trademark) from the SRD. If I remember correctly how that came about, first WotC announced a list of forthcoming PI that included d20. When enough people pointed out on this list (and I assume through back channels as well) the problems this would cause, the text was amended to include the (when used as a trademark) tag, which isn't entirely accurate but which gets the general intention across. Yes, descriptors or explanations can be useful in conjuntion with bald these words are PI declarations. 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
Matthew Hector wrote: Since the license already defines other terms, it would certainly be useful to have owenership defined for purpses of the OGL in a later version. So, that's a grand total of two good ideas for a revision of the OGL. * Define Ownership. * Specifically allow attribution of OGC to specific sources. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
I'm getting to this thread late, and this is the first mail I've received from the list, but after looking at the archives, I have to wonder why the authors of the OGL didn't foresee this problem. It seems hard to believe that someone can claim rights to material that is from the public domain via the OGL. I will admit that a literal reading of the definition of PI seems to indicate this is the case. However, I find it unlikely that any reasonable judge would allow that reading to stand. Allowing someone to claim rights to public domain content via the OGL is at best a dangerous precedent to set. At the same time, the Reformation clause could make this a moot point. Where public domain words/terms and settings could not be part of PI, it is arguable that interpretation of those terms or settings (the expression of the underlying ideas),could be protected as PI. Really, it seems that either the definition of PI would be changed to disallow claiming public domain materials as PI, or that the above change would be made. In all honesty, it seems like a good solution is to modify the OGL to make this exception. While this wouldn't necessarily solve the problem of content released under the previous version of the license, it would go a long way towards solving the problem in the future. In the present situation, it seems that the best bet is to use other spellings that are also derived from the public domain. While I find it highly doubtful that a court would enforce such an expansive reading of the definition of PI and the PI clause, if you truly wish to avoid risk, then avoid being a test case. In my opinion, the OGL could really benefit from some kind of an alternative dispute resolution clause. Litigation is expensive, and while setting a precedent is nifty and whatnot, a dispute of this nature could be resolved more effectively and inexpensively through arbitration. A good model would be the arbitration required by ICANN's UDRP. While it is not binding arbitration (given notice of filing a lawsuit within a specific timeframe), I've found that even non-binding arbitration can end a dispute without litigation. Consider it mini-litigation. Each side can see how their arguments play in Peoria. If a plaintiff sees that his case is not as good as he thought, he may not press forward with litigation. So yeah, just my rather long-winded thoughts. The short version: I think claiming public domain materials as PI is (or should be) bunk. To CYA and generally avoid hassle, go with the alternate spellings. Make sure that your descriptions of those same ideas aren't identical to your source. Matthew Hector, Esq. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ryan S. Dancey Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 3:24 PM To: ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations From: Spike Y Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. Neither, I nor any lawyer I've ever dealt with who was conversent with the issues in detail, has ever accepted such an interpretation to be valid. 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
The short version: I think claiming public domain materials as PI is (or should be) bunk. I dont think you are really getting tbe point and might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. There are times when you create an NPC and that NPC has a name that may derive from the public domain. You can, and should always be allowed to, PI the name of that NPC so long as doing so only means you are PI'ing that name as it relates to your particular incarnation of a fictional character with that name. The OGL allows this. The question is does it allow more. To disallow any PI'ing of names that may be from the public domain creates and equal though opposite problem. Clark ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
I dont think you are really getting tbe point and might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. There are times when you create an NPC and that NPC has a name that may derive from the public domain. You can, and should always be allowed to, PI the name of that NPC so long as doing so only means you are PI'ing that name as it relates to your particular incarnation of a fictional character with that name. The OGL allows this. The question is does it allow more. To disallow any PI'ing of names that may be from the public domain creates and equal though opposite problem. Ok, true, but is the most important part of that PI the NAME or the representation of the NPC? If we assume that you have an NPC named Brian Boru, is it the name or the way you characterize him that is the most important? If I created an NPC that behaved exactly like yours, had the same attributes, personality, motivations, etc., but just gave him a different name, haven't I abused your intellectual property more than if I just used the name Brian Boru, but made him 100% different than your NPC? While I would agree that a name which has acquired specific meaning within a campaign or game setting should be protectable, I can see some characters where this could be easily abused. Does the first person to create a game under the OGL that uses King Arthur and his Knights of The Round Table get dibs on those names and personae as long as he PIs them? It seems to me that what needs protection via PI is the underlying characterization of an NPC, not necessarily the name, if that name is derived from public domain sources. Clearly, a made-up or fanciful name should be PIable. But I would argue that allowing someone to PI a name from the public domain is a slippery slope. In the case of characters whose names derive from public domain, it seems to me that the only reasonable way to protect that intellectual property is to protect the expression behind the name, not the name itself. Matt -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Clark Peterson Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 11:18 PM To: ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org Subject: RE: [Ogf-l] PI declarations The short version: I think claiming public domain materials as PI is (or should be) bunk. I dont think you are really getting tbe point and might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. There are times when you create an NPC and that NPC has a name that may derive from the public domain. You can, and should always be allowed to, PI the name of that NPC so long as doing so only means you are PI'ing that name as it relates to your particular incarnation of a fictional character with that name. The OGL allows this. The question is does it allow more. To disallow any PI'ing of names that may be from the public domain creates and equal though opposite problem. Clark ___ 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 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, list terms here 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
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 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, list terms here 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
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 fromindicating "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 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
Ian Sturrock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: fan momentHello, Ian. Great job with the game. Love it!/fan moment 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 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
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
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
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
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
[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
