Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Urriak Uruk" data-source="post: 7801536" data-attributes="member: 7015558">I don't think he stands on anything here either. He uses this as an example;"In 1991, the Supreme Court <a href="https://propertyatty.wordpress.com/2019/07/24/feist/" target="_blank">shot down</a> the notion that a collection of uncopyrightable material somehow transforms into a copyrighted work. For example, if an author compiles a spreadsheet of the mass, size, and distance of various planets and stars in the known universe, that collection isn’t copyrightable because none of those individual pieces of data are copyrightable. They can’t be copyrighted because they’re not creative; they didn’t originate from the author. The author of the spreadsheet can’t report Jupiter’s mass as something it isn’t. Doing so would render the spreadsheet factually inaccurate and thus useless. Copyright is about choosing one thing over many other options. Without having the opportunity to choose anything else, one can’t say that it was original, copyrightable work. Choice is always key."He also uses an example of a phone book for phone numbers, using the Supreme Court decision that says you can't copyright a collection of un-copyright-able material.He's fixating on saying that if something is a collection of something else, it's inherently something you can't copyright. That's NOT what the case says; it says you can't copyright a collection of pieces that independently can't be copyrighted.And as far as I can see, Wizard's can copyright an individual statblock if they wanted to (they made it, why not?). So copyrighting a book of individual statblocks is also ok.</blockquote>

Verification