Trademarks and RPG:s

[phloog]

This is interesting to me...not to be become a completely paranoid conspiracy theorist here, but having just seen a TV ad (horrible, btw) for D&D that features a beholder, I can't help but wonder if someone at WOTC/Hasbro has had another look at the law, and now realizes that they need to 'mark' their products with these properties they claim are theirs.

Probably not, but just an odd coincidence that I saw that ad for the first time last night, and today I read that trademarks must be used to cause people to associate a product/company with the TM.

If this goofy theory is true, WOTC is going to have to run a bunch of ads - basically one ad per creature they want to claim.

 

[Treebore]

I do agree I question the validity of their trademark claims. If everything needs to be "marked" as being trademarked then WOTC has failed to do so. I haven't seen the letters "TM" inside a little circle next to any of their logos on any of the few books I have looked at. I see the "R" for copyrighted on their cover logo's, but no prominent "TM".

So unless the "TM" is no longer needed to declare trademark I have to question if their claims of being trademark are legitimate. I would imagine such info is "public domain".

 

[Ravencloak]

I haven't seen the letters "TM" inside a little circle next to any of their logos on any of the few books I have looked at. I see the "R" for copyrighted on their cover logo's, but no prominent "TM".

You seem to be confusing symbols, Treebore. Both "TM" and "R" are symbols used to denote trademarks, not copyrighted material. "TM" indicates something that an individual claims as a trademark, but has not officially registered as a trademark--and to my understanding, and unregistered trademark can be "scooped" by someone else who actually takes the time to register the mark. The "R" within a circle indicates that the object, word, whatever is a duly registered trademark--it has been registered with the proper authorities and is protected by law. Copyright is denoted by a "C" within a circle.

So, that "R" inside a circle indicates that WotC's logos are registered trademarks, protected by US trademark law.

 

[Morrus]

You're mistaking trademark claims for contractual agreements. The GSL, OGL and d20 STL are not copyright or tardemark claims, they are licenses to which one agrees.

As I said in my news FAQ a week or so ago, if you're tlaking to someone about one of these licenses and they start twittering on about copyright or trademarks, then feel free to leave the conversation, because it ain't remotely related to the one you're having. Expecially the oft-related at nauseum "mechanics can't be copyrighted" line which is a sure sign of a 12 year old who stumbled across a web page about copyright, thought it was relevant and gleefully posted it crowing about his original and incisive discovery. It's not relevant to any of these licenses.

It's simple: use the licence(s) and agree to the conditions within; that's it. if the conditions demand that you stand on your head and speak Swahili while dressed as a duck, then they're the conditions; as it is, the conditions more reasonably demand that you avoid certain terms.

Don't like the conditions? Don't use the licence.

 

[madelf]

Don't like the conditions? Don't use the licence.

That seems to be what this particular discussion is about (and usually is the point whenever someone brings up that "mechanics can't be copyrighted" line that apparently bothers you so).

Pointing out that "mechanics can't be copyrighted" is simply pointing out that there may be ways for someone to do what they want without using the license. That actually seems to be very relevant (at least in discussions of whether to use the license). It's true that it's not relevant to actually using the GSL, but not every discussion about D&D 4th Edition, and how it might be possible to make compatible works, is about using the GSL.

 

[Chaos Disciple]

Pointing out that "mechanics can't be copyrighted" is simply pointing out that there may be ways for someone to do what they want without using the license.

You dont need a license to use game mechanics because without any copyright protection they become public domain.

 

[justanobody]

WOTC very clearly declares their Trademark ownership on the first page of every one of their books. In that small print at the bottom of the page.

As for copyright law, I have been reading it a lot lately. This bit in section 102 of article 17 is pretty darn interesting:

"(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."

Edit: This is US law. WOTC claims protection with the US as its place of publishing origin with regards to articles of international copyright law.

And that means what exactly?

I think you can create a D&D clone, and use what's become common termonology, but realistically, Drow, Warforged, etc, are the true creations of WoTC and thus you should avoid copying those items. Games are not protected by copyright, but the so-called "fluff", the background of some of the created creatures, characters, settings, etc., would be protected.

Actually drow is not a creation of WotC, nor was it a creation of TSR. They are depicted from Scottish folklore as something closer to dwarves, but they are "elf-like". I think the name even comes from something similar to troll. Warforged WotC can have, and they can keep it. I really don't know anywhere that was used prior. In the case of drow TSR took the folklore and used it whole cloth it seems, so WotC should have no right to it at all since Drow in D&D do live in caves/caverns, and work magic metals. They just added the matriarchal society and such, which wouldn't it be possible to remove that and make your own society structure for drow and use them without the GSL without worry of violation copyright or trademark, since TSR nor WotC owned the term drow or the lore itself and your new drow would be a derivative from the original folklore?

 

[Morrus]

That seems to be what this particular discussion is about (and usually is the point whenever someone brings up that "mechanics can't be copyrighted" line that apparently bothers you so).

Pointing out that "mechanics can't be copyrighted" is simply pointing out that there may be ways for someone to do what they want without using the license. That actually seems to be very relevant (at least in discussions of whether to use the license). It's true that it's not relevant to actually using the GSL, but not every discussion about D&D 4th Edition, and how it might be possible to make compatible works, is about using the GSL.

I was respnding to the original poster, who was querying why people seemed to believe WotC had trademarked and/or copyrighted all manner of things; my response could have been shorter, I guess, and boiled down to: "Because they mistake the license terms for copyright declarations", but I do admit it's a bee in my bonnet.

Other people have digressed the conversation since, true.

 

[pbrink]

I was respnding to the original poster, who was querying why people seemed to believe WotC had trademarked and/or copyrighted all manner of things; my response could have been shorter, I guess, and boiled down to: "Because they mistake the license terms for copyright declarations", but I do admit it's a bee in my bonnet.

This is probably quite true. But my initial post was also a, somewhat sad, query on the reasons why people are so afraid of producing accessories to RPG:s in general. There are a lot of myths circling around out there, quite a few of which (of course) are faulty ideas about what you can do but there are also quite a bit of unfounded fear.

As Madelf pointed out, discussions about under which circumstances one don’t need a license are as valid (I think) as discussions about issues relating to the license(s). And this will become even more pronounced when WotC releases their fan site policy.

I think you can create a D&D clone, and use what's become common termonology, but realistically, Drow, Warforged, etc, are the true creations of WoTC and thus you should avoid copying those items. Games are not protected by copyright, but the so-called "fluff", the background of some of the created creatures, characters, settings, etc., would be protected.

We don’t seem to agree on the scope of the protection the “fluff” in RPG:s have. I seem to be more pessimistic (from the copyright holders POW) about the possibilities to protect a concept thru its expression compared to you.

I would argue that the fantasy and RPG genre has assembled a huge amount of genre specific common goods, also called a genre’s “scenes a faire”. Scenes a faire are the situations, plots, settings, character archetypes and all other elements that are necessary for a work to be recognized as a belonging to a specific genre. What makes the scope of Fantasy RPG:s scenes a faire so large is that almost any concept that exists in a RPG can be found in multiple examples either in literature or in anyone of the thousands of RPG:s that have been published over the last 30+ years. There has been a huge amount of borrowing over all these years. There is simply hardly ever anything new under the sun. This increase of the genres scenes a faire is an ever faster going process, which dilutes the scope of copyright protection of RPG:s.

The implication of all this is that, IMO, the scope of protection that the “fluff” in RPG:s have, copyright wise, is not that great. What’s protected is the specific expression, any similarities as far as the properties of the fluff goes, i.e. society, habitat, behaviour etc., lies outside the scope of protection. Personally - I don’t see this as a problem. The producers of RPG:s are protected against direct copying of their “fluff” in any case and one cannot copy RPG books because then one would copy a lot of other copyright protected materials, such as maps and illustrations.

 

[Treebore]

Copyright does not necessarily protect the word "Drow", but it does protect it AND how TSR/WOTC defined it.

As for rules and mechanics, those are not protected, but how they are presented are. So you can't use the same manner of presentation, the same XP charts, the same graphs/charts/tables, etc... Everything would have to be changed and presented differently, but the "D20" mechanic itself is usable, just not the "d20" logo.

You would also want to change how you describe various races and how you define the various classes. Same with spells, monsters, and magic items.

So you could definitely "clone" 3E or 4E under copyright laws, but there will be a lot of genetic differences that they would have some difficulty cross breeding, but it could still happen.

The 3E OGL is very friendly and open, so your better off using that OGL. The 4E GSL looks to be a very different story though. Very controlling and overly so.

Only do the 4E GSL if your fine with eventually losing control of everything you create. If you can accept that as a possible outcome then the GSL can work for you. The other limitations are less onerous and can be lived with.

IF you want to ensure you retain control of what you create, how and when you publish it, etc... then publishing without the GSL while making sure not to violate copyright and trademark is a very viable way to go. Its been done before, successfully. I enjoyed buying such material back in the 80's and 90's, and I am sure I will find it enjoyable again, if I ever start playing 4E.