At 10:48 -0800 2/4/04, Fred wrote:
--- woodelf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[i seem to have forgotten to send this, and while theoriginal thread
is long-since dead, i'd say it has some relevance to current
discussions, so i'll still make my point.]
At 14:23 -0700 7/23/03, Fred wrote:
>Can you g
--- woodelf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [i seem to have forgotten to send this, and while theoriginal thread
> is long-since dead, i'd say it has some relevance to current
> discussions, so i'll still make my point.]
>
> At 14:23 -0700 7/23/03, Fred wrote:
>
> >Can you give an example of PI i
[i seem to have forgotten to send this, and while theoriginal thread
is long-since dead, i'd say it has some relevance to current
discussions, so i'll still make my point.]
At 14:23 -0700 7/23/03, Fred wrote:
Can you give an example of PI in some actual work that is trivial to
circumvent?
"d20
In a message dated 7/31/03 1:54:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
>>
I would argue that there is no "clarity" with regards to PI ownership in the license.
I agree as a matter of common sense, rather than as a matter of law, that you shouldn't expect to protect anything t
Title: Message
Well,
until the issue is resolved, another legal doctrine comes in to play.
Since you know or reasonably should know that this ambiguity in the contract
presents a possible danger to your intellectual property, you have a duty to
mitigate your damages and not put anything at
In a message dated 7/31/03 1:13:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
head with a big foam cluebat. Individually, there is no way those
things could be enforceable declared PI.
>>
And that's the problem I have. If one believes that some elements of PI were intended to be p
In a message dated 7/31/03 12:53:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
because the WotC OGL appears to allow you to claim as PI things that
*don't* pass muster, according to what you've written above. It
doesn't just say you can claim the distinctive likeness of a
character
In a message dated 7/31/03 1:01:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
book titles can't be trademarked, but book series can be? It seems
to me that "Cyberpunk D20", to use a concrete example, wouldn't be
eligible for trademark status--does that mean the 'D20' in it is
being
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of woodelf
>Agreed on all of the above. But it doesn't solve the problem,
because the WotC OGL appears to allow you to claim as PI things that
*don't* pass muster, according to what you've written above. It
At 19:16 -0400 7/23/03, Scott Broadbent wrote:
I will agree that PI may be of little to no protection to names and
terms that are fairly generic, or commonplace. Your example being Hero
Points. The problem with your method to circumvent PI comes in when you
try to use names which only exist withi
At 21:04 -0500 7/23/03, Tim Dugger wrote:
Just saw that the legal document has been updated so that it now says
d20 (when used as a trademark)
instead of just d20
anybody have any idea how this interfaces with the idea that single
book titles can't be trademarked, but book series can be? It see
At 11:14 -0600 7/24/03, Bryan Fields wrote:
Part of standard language for protecting fictional characters is the
phrase 'the distinctive likeness thereof'. Bugs Bunny, for example,
CANNOT exist as an intellectual property if the distinctive likeness of
the character is excluded. He isn't just an
In a message dated 7/24/03 1:47:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
the GWoH, it would be pretty clear that you took the
entire concept from Wizards, violating their PI.
>>
No, why? Unless I set it in _their_ GWoH, then I could write entire books on my version of the place
In a message dated 7/24/03 2:33:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
interpretation of the wording is at cross purposes to the intent,
chances are that interpretation is not correct. I understand his
reasons, but the stated intent is fundamental to a correct
interpretation.
In a message dated 7/24/03 12:22:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Martin -- you have a dead on target understanding of the options I'm asking people to think about. Things aren't as black and white (to me at least) as they are to others.
One are of clarification:
<
C. A c
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin
L. Shoemaker
>Lee is looking to understand -- based on the language in the license,
not just stated intent -- which is
correct:
Well, there's a reason appellate courts look at original intent - if a
> If I said, "New Jersey is the gray waste of Hades",
> it would not, to my
> knowledge, under Title 17, ever be understood of as
> constituting a derivative work.
Agreed, but if you were to write an RPG module set in
the GWoH, it would be pretty clear that you took the
entire concept from Wizard
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin
L. Shoemaker
>C. A claim of PI IS a claim of ownership, just as is a copyright notice
or a trademark indicator. It's a statement that "I believe that I am the
owner of X, and I am willing to defend t
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of Bryan Fields
> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 11:31 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity
>
> It isn't a new area
> of copyright, or a
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Either PI is a subset of copyright and trademark and "ownership" (a
prerequisite for PI) is established under those bodies of law OR it
must be true that PI goes beyond those bodies of la
In a message dated 7/23/03 10:33:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
contract in which you agree to place a portion of your creation in the
public domain. Copyright and PI/OGL are apples & oranges.
>>
Why do people keep repeating this? Look, you can't have it both ways. E
Title: Message
Your
buddy's work would be handled separately, in your copyright/legal section - the
one in the front of the product that goes "this work is copyright 2003 by .
all rites reversed, prosecutors will be violated". You would have to add
"The description of New Jersey as 'the
>>I think Ryan raised some interesting points, but his conclusion that
you can just "source in" stuff from the public domain seems to blow out
of the water all poses, themes, concepts, and other things that can't be
copyrighted but which are on the PI list altogether.
OGL & PI are completely separ
In a message dated 7/23/03 8:51:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
words used together don't exist anywhere outside a WotC copyrighted work
only goes to show that it's a stretch to think that the use in your one
paragraph story is not derivitive of WotC's copyrighted work. >
In a message dated 7/23/03 8:44:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
them - all anyone can claim is ownership of a specific presentation of a
discretely conceived and uniquely described interpretation of a being by
that name. >>
If Ryan is correct, then I might buy that. The
Just saw that the legal document has been updated so that it now says
d20 (when used as a trademark)
instead of just d20
TANSTAAFL
Rasyr (Tim Dugger)
System Editor
Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
O
<<
Does this matter? "Gray Waste of Hades", if not trademarked, cannot be
copyrighted by itself. So, if somebody takes the phrase and writes a
story with the phrase then they can't be guilty of copyright
infringement on 4 words.
>>
The four words "Gray Waste of Hades" may not be protectable on t
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Ownership is one of the fundamental requirements for making a PI
declaration. It's in black and white in the license.
Yes, it is. Which is why you can have multiple products with "Tho
In a message dated 7/23/03 7:24:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
"Gray Waste of Hades", without your source being an infringement of an
existing copyrighted work. As an example, I did a search for that
phrase on Google, and the only links that come up are D&D related. >>
In a message dated 7/23/03 7:21:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<"Trivial" apparently meaning "through the use of a time machine." In
order for you to make a claim to sourcing a term to the public domain,
it has to be the *pre-existing* public domain; >>
No items without
In a message dated 7/23/03 7:18:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
>>
I don't need to.
Why would I? I wouldn't need to Section 15 any source which I draw info from which wasn't, itself, covered under the OGL.
Lee
I will agree that PI may be of little to no protection to names and
terms that are fairly generic, or commonplace. Your example being Hero
Points. The problem with your method to circumvent PI comes in when you
try to use names which only exist within an existing copyrighted work.
For example, i
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If that's the case, and your scope argument is interesting, then the vast
> majority of PI is trivial to circumvent unless it is already protected by other
> laws (like trademark or copyright).
>
> Because honestly, if you can source exactly the sa
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 7/23/03 5:30:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
> > < > circumvent?
> > >>
> Take, for example, the most recent WotC PI declaration: "Gray Waste of
> Hades". He that sounds like something they aren't gonna declare as
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 13:48, Mikael wrote:
> If I DO include content in my derived work that is identical to any
> declared PI in the work I derive from, I need to be able to point to
> another source, outside of the work I've derived from.
You need to be careful.
It is possible that the 3rd par
In a message dated 7/23/03 5:30:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
>>
There's a supers game on the market that PI's "Power Points" (read "character points") and "Hero Points" (read "plot points").
But they opened up the method by which they costed things as OGC, but relied
In a message dated 7/23/03 5:06:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
OGL. Second, your simplification isn't at all what the OGL says or implies.
>>
Actually, there was a running debate a month ago about whether PI represented a series of prohibited terms or simply a list of t
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 7/23/03 4:25:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
> > <<"Product Identity" is scoped to the work licensed. If the same content
> > comes from some other source, that other source is >not< Product
> > Identity, even if it
In a message dated 7/23/03 4:57:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<>
I'm glad somebody thought it was interesting. I have found the discussion interesting.
If you note from many of my posts, I'll frequently say it's "A" or "B". If I defend one or the other, it's to get i
Lee said:
> Next, toss out the OGL. Let's write a contract from scratch to simplify
things. So I agree to this >contract with you:
>Ryan can use Lee's work provided that Lee's work not be published, in
whole, or in part, in any >volume containing the word "Thor". If it is
published with the wo
In a message dated 7/23/03 4:25:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<"Product Identity" is scoped to the work licensed. If the same content
comes from some other source, that other source is >not< Product
Identity, even if it is exactly the same content.
>>
If that's the cas
ide of the work
I've derived from.
Is that the gist of it, Ryan?
/Mikael, Sweden
From: Ryan S. Dancey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 2003-07-23 22:12
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 12:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Why? If ownership is not at issue (the only restriction on PI other
> than that it be on the laundry list is that it be "owned" somehow) I
> don't know why.
You seem insistent on using this term "ownership" for some reason. It
is really no
In a message dated 7/23/03 2:55:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
some other source, THEN AND ONLY THEN you can enforce your claim. >>
Why? If ownership is not at issue (the only restriction on PI other than that it be on the laundry list is that it be "owned" somehow) I
--- "Ryan S. Dancey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> Hopefully, this will be the end of this thread.
>
> Ryan
Ever hopeful. Your optimism is to be admired, sir.
:)
=
BORGSTROM'S FIRST LAW (of Game Design): "If you want to emphasize something, make
sure everyone knows that they should
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 10:38, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> How are you and Ryan drawing up your definition of "ownership" of PI
> to include "enhancement over the prior art" and novelty?
Issue One:
I have not, and am not using the words "ownership" or "novelty".
Neither term is applicable.
Issue
In a message dated 7/23/03 12:58:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
words "pre-existing body of" etc. If the concept didn't exist in the
public domain for you to source *before* someone else claimed it as
PI, then the PI claim may be valid.
Spike Y Jones
>>
Spike you will
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:03:15 -0500
woodelf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 17:34 -0700 7/22/03, Michael Cortez wrote:
> > >> If you can just source a concept from the public
> >>> domain then you can defeat any PI declaration for
> >>> a concept.
> >
> >You first have to find that concept in the p
At 17:34 -0700 7/22/03, Michael Cortez wrote:
>> If you can just source a concept from the public
domain then you can defeat any PI declaration for
a concept.
You first have to find that concept in the public domain.
If the only place you find that concept, is in a OGL work, and it
doesn't exis
In a message dated 7/22/03 9:36:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<
Therefore, it's possible for someone to come up with a novel
concept.>>
Novelty of concepts is not a requirement for PI. That's reading into the license.
It can be argued that ownership is a requirement
At 19:12 -0400 7/22/03, Martin L. Shoemaker wrote:
I can think of at least a hundred discussions on this list that would never
have occurred if the license were as plain in this regard as what you just
wrote.
The vast majority of the discussions on this list wouldn't occur if
the license were as c
At 21:07 -0400 7/22/03, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Isn't this whole discussion mooted by the fact that a WotC
representative was quoted about 15 or 20 posts ago as saying words to
the effect of, "Yeah, it's a mistake; we'll have to fix it"?
No. If he'd said "yeah, it's a mistake; it's not PI" i'd
On 22 Jul 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] scribbled a note about Re: [Ogf-l] "d20" as Product
Identity...:
> Isn't this whole discussion mooted by the fact that a WotC
> representative was quoted about 15 or 20 posts ago as saying words to
> the effect of, "Yeah, it'
In a message dated 7/22/03 7:03:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<> I can hardly claim myself that "d20" is neither a concept nor an
> _expression_ using language. Can you?
Yes. It is neither.
>>
By what stretch of logic is a word neither a concept nor a bit of languag
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I believe that either the license needs to be reformed to
> drop things that can't be trademarked or copyrighted from the PI list
>
> OR
>
> The list goes far beyond normal copyright and trademark protections and can
> extend to things which norma
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of Ryan S. Dancey
> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 6:57 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity
>
> On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 14:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
&
In a message dated 7/22/03 9:06:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
imagination and knowledge of celestial mechanics, enunciated the
"concept" of geosynchronous satellites and explained why their unique
nature would be useful, I could claim that "concept" as Product
Identity.
On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 14:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I can hardly claim myself that "d20" is neither a concept nor an
> expression using language. Can you?
Yes. It is neither.
> Would you care to enumerate for us, the kind of ownership and other
> requirements, etc. might be required to PI
Ryan S. Dancey wrote:
In short: They can put whatever they like into a Product Identity
clause, but successfully enforcing that declaration on a 3rd party is
probably impossible for something as vague as "d20" in anything other
than a trademark infringement case.
You forgot the qualifier, Ryan
On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 17:26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Then how are concepts ever protected under the OGL as PI?
If I was Arthur C. Clarke, and the year was 1940, and I, out of my own
imagination and knowledge of celestial mechanics, enunciated the
"concept" of geosynchronous satellites and expl
>> If you can just source a concept from the public
>> domain then you can defeat any PI declaration for
>> a concept.
You first have to find that concept in the public domain.
If the only place you find that concept, is in a OGL work, and it
doesn't exist anywhere else, then you can't use it.
In a message dated 7/22/03 9:21:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Isn't this whole discussion mooted by the fact that a WotC
representative was quoted about 15 or 20 posts ago as saying words to
the effect of, "Yeah, it's a mistake; we'll have to fix it"?
Spike Y Jones
No,
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:49:30 EDT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > < > clearly >not< forced to source it from your PI claim, ergo,
> > I'm not violating your PI claim. (Your PI claim is essentially
> > worthless).
>
> Ryan, how then does the license offer PI protection to "concepts".
> Concepts, un
At 14:28 -0700 7/22/03, Ryan S. Dancey wrote:
WotC doesn't own, and cannot successfully enforce a product identity
claim on the term "d20". That's why they didn't try to trademark
"d20" in the first place.
Ryan and i are agreeing? One of us must've been pod-personed.
The OGL specifically enumer
In a message dated 7/22/03 9:04:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<
(e) "Product Identity" means ... language, concepts
---
In a message dated 7/22/03 8:09:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
>>
Don't look at me. I believe that either the license needs to be reformed to drop things that can't be trademarked or copyrighted from the PI list
OR
The list goes far beyond normal copyright and tradem
Isn't this whole discussion mooted by the fact that a WotC
representative was quoted about 15 or 20 posts ago as saying words to
the effect of, "Yeah, it's a mistake; we'll have to fix it"?
Spike Y Jones
___
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://m
IANAL...
Ultimately, I think the question boils down to this:
quote:
(e) "Product Identity" means product and product line names, logos and
identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters;
In a message dated 7/22/03 8:21:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Exactly.
Ryan
Then how are concepts ever protected under the OGL as PI?
They will never be trademarked or copyrighted. They will be floating around in the public domain as concepts. If you can just source
In a message dated 7/22/03 7:44:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
Ryan, how then does the license offer PI protection to "concepts". Conce
On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 17:02, Spike Y Jones wrote:
> A mouthful,
> which is probably why he shortened it to "from the public domain."
Exactly.
Ryan
___
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 16:12, Martin L. Shoemaker wrote:
> I agree with that as a goal, but language to that effect doesn't appear in
> the license. Is it your belief -- recognizing that you're not in the
> business of providing legal advice -- that a court would read this intent
> into the wording
In a message dated 7/22/03 7:21:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I can think of at least a hundred discussions on this list that would never
have occurred if the license were as plain in this regard as what you just
wrote.
Agreed. There is only a very thin definition for
WotC is aware of the need for clarification. I think I still like Ryan's answer to my previous questions as they help round out a previous line of discussion. For now, here's what Andy Smith wrote me:
Lee
---
Yes, I realize that line needs to be clarified, I'm surprised it didn't jump out at m
In a message dated 7/22/03 5:36:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
claim on the term "d20". That's why they didn't try to trademark
"d20" in the first place. The OGL specifically enumerates what a
company can claim as Product Identity, and "die types" are not on the
list.
WotC doesn't own, and cannot successfully enforce a product identity
claim on the term "d20". That's why they didn't try to trademark
"d20" in the first place. The OGL specifically enumerates what a
company can claim as Product Identity, and "die types" are not on the
list. The list of "Product
76 matches
Mail list logo