Fyrlock did put a own copyright sign/tag for his stat blocks on the published stat blocks, which implies in my personal view, that he made them up from scratch (at least, that is how I understand copyright) and thereby infringing/violating copyright laws, since the original stat blocks were the basis for his own and not his own generic work
I'm happy to be corrected by @S'mon, but I don't think very much in this issue turns on Frylock's assertion of copyright over his published work. (As I posted upthread, it's not entirely clear what he is claiming copyright over but his publication certainly includes text that goes beyond the content of MM stat blocks.)once he slapped his OWN copyright on it...that starts to be pretty clear cut. He would have had to delineate between what is HIS and what is NOT...but if he included the WotC formats and patterns in his own work and simply said it's copyright to him...well....not a GOOD thing from my viewpoint/opinion.
Confusion of producers is a concept that pertains to TM law, not copyright law.Is the visual presentation of game mechanics/content copyrightable or not? If the answer is yes (which I think is here the case, since the creativity behind this presentation process is unique), then a similar (albeit modified version) presentation might lead to confusion about the origin of the product in question.
But my understanding is that visual design/formatting is a copyrightable work. Although the content may not be.
The OGL is a standing offer by WotC to enter into a conract (in the form of a license of IP rights) on certain terms. WotC can withrdraw that offer at any time (given that no one has paid them to make it),If a license is published/made public it can be revoked, right? Why is the OGL considered unrevokable?
If Frylock wouldn´t have placed his own copyright tag under the product in question and added an approbate license (OGL or 5E, whatever would be approbate here), then as I understand it, the whole affair would not have happened. So my stupid question is here: Why pose something as your own and make a big wind about it when notified about it, when there are possibilities to avoid that and still publish your work?
Anyone who has taken up the offer and entered into the contract has rights which are, according to the terms of the licence, irrevocable. Whether those terms actually govern the agreement or whether there are other legal rules affect the term of the licence is something I don't know. @S'mon?
As far as Frylock is concerned, he has long been a critic of the OGL on the grounds that, under it, WotC asserts IP rights that it does not actually enjoy and gets people to contract away rights that they otherwise would enjoy. So I don't think he is interested in himself becoming a party to it.