D&D (2024) Anyone mentioned that SRD5.2 got no Knight?

[Paul Farquhar]

to the extent that a D&D stat block constitutes a copyrightable story about (say) a knight

A stat block is "game rules" not "a story". And intellectual property laws are very weak in protecting game rules. Changing the format slightly would be sufficient in many territories. The main reason WotC decided to "charitably" introduce the OGL in the first place was so it didn't have to try and defend intellectual property through the courts which it was far from certain of winning. And a description of what a knight is is also not subject to intellectual property law, unless it differs significantly from the dictionary definition.

 

[pemerton]

A stat block is "game rules" not "a story".

This is contentious. And I don't think that WotC would concede this flat-out in a lawsuit!

Here's a relevant post from the last period of ENworld-does-IP-law: D&D General - What Actually Is Copyright Protected In The SRD?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

This is contentious. And I don't think that WotC would concede this flat-out in a lawsuit!

Sure. It depends very much on the territory and the judge.

And WotC would want to avoid having to contend it in court at all costs. Because they might lose, and if they did, they are screwed, since the ruling with give carte blanche to all and sundry to copy anything the liked, so long as they used a slightly different wording and layout.

WotC are only going to defend things they can clearly win on, like proper names (e.g. Tasha), distinctive images (e.g. a Beholder), copy-pasted blocks of text and registered trademarks. I.e. the things they don't put in the SRD.

 

[pemerton]

WotC are only going to defend things they can clearly win on, like proper names (e.g. Tasha), distinctive images (e.g. a Beholder), copy-pasted blocks of text and registered trademarks. I.e. the things they don't put in the SRD.

What makes you think that the proper name "Tasha" is copyright?

It's not copyrightable in itself - lots of people in the world are called Tasha, and their use of their name doesn't infringe any WotC copyright.

The phrase "Tasha's Hideous Laughter" doesn't seem, to my intuition, to be an object of copyright. And the spell doesn't seem to me to tell a story about a witch called Tasha in quite the same way that a statblock might.

If someone printed the Hideous Laughter statblock under the heading "Tasha's Hideous Laughter", as per my post 24 upthread it's not clear to me that WotC has any IP complaint against them (providing they're not trying to use Tasha's as a trademark).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The phrase "Tasha's Hideous Laughter" doesn't seem, to my intuition, to be an object of copyright.

I'm pretty certain it would be, at least under UK law. "Hideous L:aughter" on it's own would not be, so long as it does what the name suggests. But "it could be a different person called Tasha" wouldn't cut it in that context. The word "Jaffa" is a place, and "Cake" is a thing. Neither is an IP on it's own, but "Jaffa Cake" applied to a confectionary item is. "Orangy Cake Biscuit" is not. Context is king.

And the spell doesn't seem to me to tell a story about a witch called Tasha in quite the same way that a statblock might.

The spell doesn't tell any story, but nor does a stat block. The text in some ability descriptions that make up part of the stat block might, but so long as it was rephrased it's all good.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I'm pretty certain it would be, at least under UK law. "Hideous L:aughter" on it's own would not be, so long as it does what the name suggests. But "it could be a different person called Tasha" wouldn't cut it in that context. The word "Jaffa" is a place, and "Cake" is a thing. Neither is an IP on it's own, but "Jaffa Cake" applied to a confectionary item is. "Orangy Cake Biscuit" is not. Context is king.

You're mixing up copyright and trademarks. If Tasha was selling her Hideous Laughter she could get a trademark for it, but she can't because she's a fictional character and Hideous Laughter isn't an actual product being traded.

 

[pemerton]

Neither is an IP on it's own, but "Jaffa Cake" applied to a confectionary item is. "Orangy Cake Biscuit" is not. Context is king.

Are you talking about copyright, or trade mark?

According to this wikipedia page - Jaffa Cakes - Wikipedia - the phrase "jaffa cake" was not trademarked. But in any event, this has no bearing on whether it could be a copyrighted phrase.