D&D General Frylock on the ‘Ineffectual OGL’

S'mon · Aug 27, 2019

lowkey13 said:
Well, it also depends on the medium. I think a lot of people were pretty gobsmacked about the result of the Katy Perry Dark Horse lawsuit.

Yeah, sometimes it feels like music copyright is a law unto itself! I tend to emphasise to my students that in practice the courts take rather different approaches to the scope of copyright protection in different mediums, as you say. "Art" has the least scope & protection, "Music" & secondary copyright in Phonograms the most, and literary works are in between.

Mistwell · Aug 27, 2019

darjr said:
Has @Mistwell chimed in?

No he has not. Nor shall he, he said, as he stepped slowly away from train wreck.

Umbran · Aug 27, 2019

S'mon said:
I expect that's right. But you can have non-literal copyright infringement if you take too much of the detailed plot.

Yes. There is a point where plot details become creative content. As lowkey mentioned, there's a difficulty in discussing things that has so much depth of fiddly legal detail.

Beleriphon · Aug 27, 2019

Umbran said:
Yes. There is a point where plot details become creative content. As lowkey mentioned, there's a difficulty in discussing things that has so much depth of fiddly legal detail.

I was going to mention that. Akira Kurosawa wasn't happy with Sergio Leone over A Fist Full of Dollars. My understanding is that Leone ended up settling with Kurosawa over an undisclosed amount.

DM Magic · Aug 29, 2019

An addendum has been posted: Part 3.5: A Mild Retraction That Makes Matters Worse for #WotC #DnD #copyright #iplaw #ogl

lowkey13 · Aug 29, 2019

*Deleted by user*

S'mon · Aug 29, 2019

DM Magic said:
An addendum has been posted: Part 3.5: A Mild Retraction That Makes Matters Worse for #WotC #DnD #copyright #iplaw #ogl

He seems to be sticking with his weird misinterpretation of OGL clause 1(e) as automatically excluding all listed elements, rather than those elements when specifically designated as Product Identity. I am slightly surprised his team of high powered lawyers have not pointed this out to him.

Edit: Reading his comment thread responses to accurate criticisms in part 3, he seems to think 'Product Identity' is about 'withdrawing stuff from the Public Domain." No, it is about the consideration WoTC receives from the licensee in exchange for the consideration they grant the licensee. By the licence the licensee can't use PI at all, even nominatively. In exchange they receive a broad licence to use a bunch of material WoTC owns the copyright in. That WoTC receive consideration under the licence is what makes the OGL (afaict) a valid contract in Common-law legal systems, rather than a bare promise by them.