doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Eh. Look, here's the slight leap he takes that I don't know that I agree with.
It's a truism that you can't copyright something with no creativity. Say, a phone number. And a collection of things you cannot copyright cannot be copyrighted. So, a database of phone numbers (for example) cannot be copyrighted.
Here's where he loses me. He then makes the leap to saying that monster stat blocks cannot be copyrighted because they are obvious expressions of what the monster "is", you know, like you can't copyright the distance to Jupiter. ....but ..... that's not true. He uses the example of the Cyclops, as if it is obvious that the Cyclops would have particular stats and attacks and so on.
There is creativity in converting monsters into 5e. And giving them stats. Otherwise, there would be some platonic ideal stat block that could be understood independently and without creativity; put another way, he is copying WoTC shamelessly because he HAS TO, and because there is creativity in those stat blocks.
Who knows? Maybe he'll set a new precedent, but I don't think his logic is either airtight or particularly sound.
Right, like, I wouldn't have included the depth perception part of the block. It's not a human with a missing eye, it's a creature that has never had two eyes, is not physically designed to have two eyes, whose brain is 100% guaranteed to not be designed to take sensory input from 2 eyes, etc, so I wouldn't try to represent only having 1 eye in any meaningful way. Especially not at 30 feat!
But, he also copyrighted his version, which seems to contradict the only potentially valid basis for his side of the argument. Either the information can be legitimately copyrighted, or it can't be. He isn't adding anything that is so distinct and creative that his is a valid copyright but wotc's isn't, it is the same information, with only the most mild rewording. The rewording itself is also entirely of information that he himself seems to believe cannot be legitimately copyrighted, because it's basic mechanical information.
Between all that, and the fact that he is making a huge deal out of a friendly "hey maybe don't copy-paste our work and then slap your own copyright notice on the bottom of it" letter from a company that would be well within their legal and ethical rights to be less friendly about it...and I'm not sympathetic at all. Even as a guy who view large corporations that hold copyrights over decades old IP that they purchased as subsidiary companies as inherently bad for the culture in which they operate, I find I can't place myself on this guy's side on this one.