Could a magazine run an article about beholders?
- Thread starter Klaus
- Start date
Justin D. Jacobson
First Post
Hi, Claudio. I'm not seeing anything but a red "X." However, you can't use "beholder" not just because it's product identity but because it's copyrighted. Using it in a magazine would violate the copyright.
RangerWickett
Legend
Hm. Is the term beholder copyrighted? What about the . . . Portuguese, right? Portuguese translation of the name.
I don't know if WotC would or could sue a foreign magazine.
I don't know if WotC would or could sue a foreign magazine.
Klaus
First Post
Try this link: http://www.rederpg.com.br/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2793Justin D. Jacobson said:
RangerWickett -> They call the "Observadores", which is the official translation for Beholder. And the cover image comes from the Jeff Easley Monstrous Manual cover, from 2e.
Justin D. Jacobson
First Post
Looks like a copyright violation to me. I'm guessing they're relying on the assumption (probably reasonably so) that they're off WotC's radar.Klaus said:
HellHound
ENnies winner and NOT Scrappy Doo
As long as the magazine isn't specifically a d20 magazine, it can be done.
From what I've been told a general interest RPG magazine can produce material for various RPGs without a license for said material, and even advertise the material, as long as the mgazine does so for multiple game systems. Like how Dragon used to operate before it became a house organ, or long before that we had White Dwarf which routinely had D&D material in it.
More recently there was a magazine of adventures and it advertised what games it had adventures for, including CyberPunk, Shadowrun, Ars Magica and so on.
From what I've been told a general interest RPG magazine can produce material for various RPGs without a license for said material, and even advertise the material, as long as the mgazine does so for multiple game systems. Like how Dragon used to operate before it became a house organ, or long before that we had White Dwarf which routinely had D&D material in it.
More recently there was a magazine of adventures and it advertised what games it had adventures for, including CyberPunk, Shadowrun, Ars Magica and so on.
You can't include Beholders in a work published under the OGL without WoTC's permission, otherwise you infringe the OGL.
The word "Beholder" is not copyright protected. It's just a word. It can be trademark protected though, I have no idea if WoTC has a registered trademark in it, though I suspect not. Under US law there is a limited TM state-wide protection for unregistered marks, though.
Under UK law, IMO you could write an article about the D&D monster Beholder without infringing WoTC copyrights or Trademarks. In UK law it wouldn't IMO count as a derivative work (edit: in UK law only adaptations of the original work are really covered). It might be a derivative work (of the Monster Manual 'Beholder' entry) under US law, which seems a lot broader. Current US copyright law seems to give protection to characters & plot elements in a way UK law doesn't, at a stetch that might be extendable to monster concepts, and the Beholder is a pretty specific concept, much moreso than mind flayers or drow. The plaintiff still has to show what work it was you copied from though.
The word "Beholder" is not copyright protected. It's just a word. It can be trademark protected though, I have no idea if WoTC has a registered trademark in it, though I suspect not. Under US law there is a limited TM state-wide protection for unregistered marks, though.
Under UK law, IMO you could write an article about the D&D monster Beholder without infringing WoTC copyrights or Trademarks. In UK law it wouldn't IMO count as a derivative work (edit: in UK law only adaptations of the original work are really covered). It might be a derivative work (of the Monster Manual 'Beholder' entry) under US law, which seems a lot broader. Current US copyright law seems to give protection to characters & plot elements in a way UK law doesn't, at a stetch that might be extendable to monster concepts, and the Beholder is a pretty specific concept, much moreso than mind flayers or drow. The plaintiff still has to show what work it was you copied from though.
Last edited:
HellHound said:
This is kinda right I think, basically because a general RPG magazine won't be infringing TMs in the original work, because the relevant public won't think that eg a D&D article in White Dwarf (to use an old example) originates from TSR. Copyright is kinda murky though. Under UK law, IMO you could publish an article or scenario about Beholders in your RPG mag, but if you reproduced the Beholder stat block from the Monster Manual IMO that would probably be held to be a copyright infringement.
Another point - the foul tentacles of IP law are extending all the time (like some kinda Aberration)
, stuff that was considered unremarkable in 1985 might be considered actionable in 2005.
