WotC Frylock's Gaming & Geekery Challenges WotC's Copyright Claims

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Parmandur]

Oh. So I found this earlier post by him-

Update: One-Stop Stat Blocks and the #WotC Complaint #DnD #5e #RPG #copyright

Please visit this post for the latest status. I just wanted to give an update on the situation with Wizards of the Coast and my one-stop stat blocks. To review, I created stat blocks that were stan…

gsllc.wordpress.com

Ouch. A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.

If this is how he reacts to a relatively benign email (this is about the most pleasant copyright demand letter I have seen in a long time) by promising to expose WotC's conduct over the past "10-15 years," I'd hate to see what happens when there is real adversity.


EDIT- I should add that while I am sympathetic to anyone dealing with a large company, sometimes you don't need to take it to 11.

WotC is actually supremely gentle about fair use, given their rights under the law. This is way out of proportion.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[neobolts]

The idea that stat blocks for established creatures are self-evident doesn't hold up. If I gave Frylock and a WotC staffer identical narrative information on a previously un-stated creature in the public domain, they would not generate 100% identical stat blocks. There would be real notable variance.

Side note, is it odd that lawyer is blogging details and legal strategy for a case where he is the defendant? I would think staying silent and saving it for court would be a better choice.

 

[Morrus]

The idea that stat blocks for established creatures are self-evident doesn't hold up. If I gave Frylock and a WotC staffer identical narrative information on a previously un-stated creature in the public domain, they would not generate 100% identical stat blocks. There would be real notable variance.

Side note, is it odd that lawyer is blogging details and legal strategy for a case where he is the defendant? I would think staying silent and saving it for court would be a better choice.

It’s not a case, and he’s not a defendant. It’s just a (fairly polite) email from WotC at this point.

 

[AriochQ]

It's a truism that you can't copyright something with no creativity. Say, a phone number. And a collection of things you cannot copyright cannot be copyrighted. So, a database of phone numbers (for example) cannot be copyrighted.

Here's where he loses me. He then makes the leap to saying that monster stat blocks cannot be copyrighted because they are obvious expressions of what the monster "is", you know, like you can't copyright the distance to Jupiter. ....but ..... that's not true. He uses the example of the Cyclops, as if it is obvious that the Cyclops would have particular stats and attacks and so on.

There is creativity in converting monsters into 5e. And giving them stats. Otherwise, there would be some platonic ideal stat block that could be understood independently and without creativity; put another way, he is copying WoTC shamelessly because he HAS TO, and because there is creativity in those stat blocks.

I believe his argument is that since concepts like "Hit Points" and "Rock" can't be copyrighted, the underlying values need to have a sufficient amount of "creativity". Simply assigning a value to "hit points" is not creative enough. Hence, it is not copyrightable, and he can just duplicate it. The same would hold true for the rest of the stat block. The information is either not copyrightable or is insufficiently creative.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Never heard of this guy before, but in my experience there’s a massive difference in lawyers. Not sure what kind Frylock is, but I can pretty much guarantee some small-potatoes lawyer (I suspect any lawyer part of a larger firm would avoid this sort of legally-inadvisable showboating and hyperbole) isn’t going to be successful in taking on a major corporation's legal team.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Parmandur]

I believe his argument is that since concepts like "Hit Points" and "Rock" can't be copyrighted, the underlying values need to have a sufficient amount of "creativity". Simply assigning a value to "hit points" is not creative enough. Hence, it is not copyrightable, and he can just duplicate it. The same would hold true for the rest of the stat block. The information is either not copyrightable or is insufficiently creative.

his argument won't hold up in court, full stop. It's a bad argument.