Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

--- 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

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

[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

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

RE: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

Re: [Ogf-l] d20 as Product identity

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

RE: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

-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

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

Re: [Ogf-l] d20 as Product identity

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

RE: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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.

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

RE: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

-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

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

> 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

RE: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

-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

RE: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

> 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

RE: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

-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

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

RE: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

RE: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

>>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

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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. >

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

[Ogf-l] d20 as Product identity

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

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

<< 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

RE: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

-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

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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. >>

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

--- [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

Re: SV: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

--- [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

Re: SV: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

SV: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

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

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

--- "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

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

RE: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

RE: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

Re: [Ogf-l] "d20" as Product Identity...

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

Re: [Ogf-l] "d20" as Product Identity...

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'

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

RE: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

> 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: > &

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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.

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" 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

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

RE: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

>> 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.

Re: [Ogf-l] "d20" as Product Identity...

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,

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

Re: [Ogf-l] "d20" as Product Identity...

In a message dated 7/22/03 9:04:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << (e) "Product Identity" means ... language, concepts ---

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

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's a mistake; we'll have to fix it"? Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://m

[Ogf-l] "d20" as Product Identity...

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;

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

RE: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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

Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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. 

[Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity

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