Dumb Question About OGL Monsters

[Morrus]

Actually, as TSR's history proves, mechanics can't be copyrighted. Tables may be considered copyrighted, the words themselves that describe the mechanics may be copyrighted, but the mechanic itself cannot be copyrighted.

But we're not talking about copyright - we're talking about license terms. Use of the OGL negates the copyright factor.

But tangentially, yes, I agree the exception would be someone who ignores the licenses, produces a "compatible" product without the branding. They'd have to be very careful.

However, that's not really relevant to a discussion about the OGL, and certainly doesn't help the OP in his question about how to produce an OGL product!

 

[Morrus]

I think this is the relevant section of OGL1.0a:



(Emphasis in the above is my own.)

I'm not a lawyer or anything, but to me, that seems to indicate fairly clearly that "magical or supernatural abilities or effects" can be declared Product Identity.

I'll agree that it's not in keeping with the spirit of the OGL to do so.

Yeah - but except for that which is OGL. So, yes, you can have a magical ability with no basis in the d20 mechanic, and it can be declared PI. A reference to, say, "does 2d4 CON damage to the target", or "the target is dazed[/]i" (to pick two random d20 game terms) cannot be PI. You can't declare WotC's game terms as PI.

You could define "the target turns blue" as PI; that's not a protected game term. But then, your magical effect is not a d20 mechanic, it's just a mechanic - there's nothing d20 about "you turn blue".

 

[Corjay]

Now that I've carefully read every post, just a point of clarification, the name "chirugery" cannot itself be declared PI. But in association with the description/image, it becomes PI. For instance, you could name a skill "chirugery", or give the name to a little cuddly creature, and it won't violate PI, even if that little cuddly creature has identical powers (considering different names for those powers where the name is connected to the PI) as the Iron Kingdoms Chirugery (just to get it as close to the borderline as possible). The reason being that the identity is completely different. (Not that you should try to test those boundaries. The best advice is just to give it a new name and identity. It's just easier than navigating PI.)

 

[Najo]

I think this is the relevant section of OGL1.0a:

1.(e) "Product Identity" means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content;


(Emphasis in the above is my own.)

I'm not a lawyer or anything, but to me, that seems to indicate fairly clearly that "magical or supernatural abilities or effects" can be declared Product Identity.

I'll agree that it's not in keeping with the spirit of the OGL to do so.

Cheers,
Roger

I think the part I bolded is the key part of this section of the license. It says names and descriptions, not anything regarding game mechanics. The confusion is that magical and supernatural effects referenced here is descriptions of them, not rules. If it was referring to rules there would be mention of the extraordinary category too.

Product Identity is anything that can be protected under copyright or as part of the product's intellectual property. The game mechanics of anything created under the OGL can't be protected.

With the creature the OP is asking about, you could not use its name, the fluff descriptions, the copyrightable names and any copyrighted references in the power descriptions. Everything else mechanically can be used as is, and the names and descriptions you can't use you just rename and rewrite with your own creations and then protect those under your own declaration of Product Identity and copyright. In the OGL printed at the back of your product you insert Privateer Press' contribution notice following the rules in the OGL.

 

[see]

My understanding is:

For something to be Product Identity, it must be "clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity". See the example of the D20 SRD, with has lots of monster special ability names that are not PI because they aren't declared PI, even though the OGL has the clause "names and descriptions of . . . special abilities".

So, what you need to look for is a declaration of Product Identity in the product, outside of the text of the OGL. As best I can tell, the Monsternomicon Vol. I that I have does not claim PI on either monster names or ability names; it claims "proper names", but that would be names of individuals like "Billy", not of entire species like "cephalyx". (And, indeed, "specail abilities" are explicitly declared Open Game COntent by the notice in the Monsternomicon.)

If we instead look at, say, the Creature Collection Revised, we see a "Designation of Product Identity" that specifically includes "names of . . . creatures", with no "proper" reservation, so if you want to re-use the asaatth in your module, you have to give them another name.

 

[Morrus]

My understanding is:

For something to be Product Identity, it must be "clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity". See the example of the D20 SRD, with has lots of monster special ability names that are not PI because they aren't declared PI, even though the OGL has the clause "names and descriptions of . . . special abilities".

So, what you need to look for is a declaration of Product Identity in the product, outside of the text of the OGL. As best I can tell, the Monsternomicon Vol. I that I have does not claim PI on either monster names or ability names; it claims "proper names", but that would be names of individuals like "Billy", not of entire species like "cephalyx". (And, indeed, "specail abilities" are explicitly declared Open Game COntent by the notice in the Monsternomicon.)

If we instead look at, say, the Creature Collection Revised, we see a "Designation of Product Identity" that specifically includes "names of . . . creatures", with no "proper" reservation, so if you want to re-use the asaatth in your module, you have to give them another name.

But bear in mind that just because something is not designated as WotC's invented license term term "PI" does not necessarily mean it is not IP outisde of those license terms.

 

[Jraynack]

But bear in mind that just because something is not designated as WotC's invented license term term "PI" does not necessarily mean it is not IP outisde of those license terms.

Exactly.