BookBarbarian
Expert Long Rester
I feel the same way. It seems to completely fly in the face of his "Statblocks are inherently not copyrightable" argument.
WotC Frylock's Gaming & Geekery Challenges WotC's Copyright Claims
I feel the same way. It seems to completely fly in the face of his "Statblocks are inherently not copyrightable" argument.
I'm no lawyer, so I can't say which one is right here. But... I believe Frylock's argument is how it should be (well, except him claiming copyright over the stat blocks himself).
The way I see it, a stat block is analogous to a recipe, which can not be copyrighted. You can copyright "fluff" around the recipe, and possibly some flavorful prose within the recipe, but not the basic list of ingredients and instructions. For example, the recipe for a Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster includes the instruction "Allow four litres of Fallian marsh gas to bubble through it, in memory of all those happy hikers who have died of pleasure in the Marshes of Fallia." The phrase about the happy hikers who died in the Marshes of Fallia would be protected, but not the part about allowing four litres of Fallian marsh gas to bubble through it.
Similarly, a stat block is just a statement of facts. Made-up facts, to be sure, but still facts. A goblin is weak, but nimble and sneaky. A grell has paralytic tentacles. A flesh golem has their strength replenished by lightning. The stat block is just a reflection of those facts.
I just looked through about half the stat blocks in Volo's Guide to Monsters (because I figured that would have a greater chance of having fluff in the stat blocks), and other than the occasional name mentioned (e.g. "Vaprak's Rage"), I don't see anything that's not just a statement of in-game facts. The stuff outside the stat blocks is definitely copyrightable (e.g. the stuff about a Frost Giant Everlasting One being the result of a frost giant eating a troll in a ritual dedicated to Vaprak intended to grant the giant greater strength and resilience), but not the stat blocks themselves.
The way I see it, a stat block is analogous to a recipe, which can not be copyrighted. You can copyright "fluff" around the recipe, and possibly some flavorful prose within the recipe, but not the basic list of ingredients and instructions. For example, the recipe for a Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster includes the instruction "Allow four litres of Fallian marsh gas to bubble through it, in memory of all those happy hikers who have died of pleasure in the Marshes of Fallia." The phrase about the happy hikers who died in the Marshes of Fallia would be protected, but not the part about allowing four litres of Fallian marsh gas to bubble through it.
Similarly, a stat block is just a statement of facts. Made-up facts, to be sure, but still facts. A goblin is weak, but nimble and sneaky. A grell has paralytic tentacles. A flesh golem has their strength replenished by lightning. The stat block is just a reflection of those facts.
I just looked through about half the stat blocks in Volo's Guide to Monsters (because I figured that would have a greater chance of having fluff in the stat blocks), and other than the occasional name mentioned (e.g. "Vaprak's Rage"), I don't see anything that's not just a statement of in-game facts. The stuff outside the stat blocks is definitely copyrightable (e.g. the stuff about a Frost Giant Everlasting One being the result of a frost giant eating a troll in a ritual dedicated to Vaprak intended to grant the giant greater strength and resilience), but not the stat blocks themselves.
MoonSong
Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
I kind of get the point he tries to make. I don't like the attitude, but it is kind of a gambit I can understand. It could be ruled that his changes -because these statblocks aren't identical, they follow a different order- are copyrightable and WotC keeps their copyrigth, but loses some, as his copyright stands too. Or they don't and then WotC cannot further claim to own the copyright to statblocks at all. Or something like that, I get the semblance of logic in there. The guy is still getting crushed in court, and he is kind of begging for it. But his point is that statblocks aren't copyrightable and is willing to put his own neck in the line, it isn't that bad of a point to make. He is just too unlikeable and risking a bit much for a basically senseless point.
My undertstanding is that the dispute turned on particular images or story elements, like the near-reproduction of the cover of Action Comics no 1 on a Captain Marvel cover.
If someone accepts the OGL, then s/he can publish SRD material that is licensed under the OGL. But Frylock is arguing that he can publish stat blocks without needing to be licensed because WotC enjoys no IP rights in respect of them.
As I understand it, the argument is that deciding that a Cyclops has 138 rather than (say) 146 hp is (i) a decision about game rules and hence not something that generates copyright, and (ii) is not an artistic creation because as far as the story aspect is concerned it only affirms the age-old story that cyclops are tough. Maybe a stat block with a 1 hp cyclops would be different because it would be a story about a weak cyclops, although that might still leave argument (i) in place. (I don't know how US copyright law handles the game rules argument in the context of a game that also takes story elements as an input and produces them as an output.)
He hasn't asserted that he can copy WotC's stuff with impunity. Just statblocks. And his grounds for this assertion is that WotC doesn't own anything in respect of its statblocks. That argument doesn't "fall apart" just because it issues in that conclusion. What's your counter-argument that WotC does own copyright in respect of its stablocks?
I'm surprised by the number of confident assertions about the law in this thread by people who don't seem to really know what they're talking about. It may not be polite to call such people trolls, but I'm not sure their opinions need to be given much credence.
Of the lawyers who post on this thread the one with whom I've had the most profitable discussions about IP is @S'mon. If he has the time and inclination, I'd be curious to learn what he thinks about this.
Being a lawyer doesn’t mean every lawyer knows copyright law or knows it well. Anyone can google crap out of law texts and get some of the same info. If the lawyer on this forum IS a copyright lawyer then great but it’s like a starting pitcher, mid reliever, and closer...all are pitchers, know about the job but specialize in their field but can still “talk” about pitching.
Maybe since the American legal system tends to have a now world wide reputation for frivolous lawsuits, maybe Aqua Teen Hunger Force can bring a suit against the use of Frylock since he’s making the animated character look bad by using his name....no worse of a lawsuit and legal system then what this thread is about with a guy ripping off another companies work.
Maybe since the American legal system tends to have a now world wide reputation for frivolous lawsuits, maybe Aqua Teen Hunger Force can bring a suit against the use of Frylock since he’s making the animated character look bad by using his name....no worse of a lawsuit and legal system then what this thread is about with a guy ripping off another companies work.
Is this a reply to me?
If so, then as I said @S'mon in my experience provides the best analysis of IP, especially copyright, matters on these boards. He is an IP scholar in a British university, but also has a pretty good working knowledge of US copyright law.
Also in my experience people who Google the crap out of law texts don't give very good legal analysis. Much of this thread is a case in point!
Cool, I hope he is able to chime in with his opinion!
Actually, I think that part of his argument has merit.
I should have been more precise in my issue, which was more with his own seeming assertion of copyright. If he's noir actually doing that, and he does put his stat blocks out there for everyone, then he certainly has an argument.
I do think it will be interesting to see this progress, and even he seems to admit that he's pushing some boundaries.
I just Googled and found this document which presumably is the one that all the fuss is about.
The copyright claim appears in a footer, together with a "last modified" time stamp. I assume the copyright claim is being made in respect of the copyrightable portions of the work as a whole rather than the stat blocks. For instance, it contains the following non-stat block text (which somewhat ironically I reproduce here for the purposes of review/commentary):
I made changes to several stat blocks in order to reconcile them with the table on page 274 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide, Monster Statistics by Challenge Rating. In short, monsters over CR 5 are typically underpowered with respect to how much damage their Actions do. I suspect that the reason for this is related to the fact that the Monster Manual and Dungeon Master’s Guide were released separately. While that time difference is relatively short, I suspect the two were written independently and thus aren’t in sync. I also made a few changes because I found the monsters boring.
In case you want to revert these stat blocks to their original numbers and powers, here are the original stats as they appeared in the Monster Manual. Follow these instructions, and everything will be the same.
In case you want to revert these stat blocks to their original numbers and powers, here are the original stats as they appeared in the Monster Manual. Follow these instructions, and everything will be the same.
He also has spell descriptions which clearly are different from the WotC ones - that's what makes his stat blocks "one-stop". I haven't read his blog about spell blocks yet (is it up?) and so don't know whether or not he believes that he can enjoy copyright in respect of those, or at least thinks there is a chance that he may do so.
Similar Threads
