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

[Parmandur]

I looked through the images which were presented, and both the format and the text are modified.

Tor example, CR and Exp are relocated, and the layout uses simple lines of varying widths, while the WotC layout uses tapering lines.

Certain text elements are the same -- "Poor Depth Perception" -- but the exact wordings differ.

I think a key question is whether the wording differences are sufficient, or were made to simply appear different. The appearances do seem very similar. But then there is a second issue, which is whether the words (and layout) are primarily functional in intent.

Thx!
TomB

It copies whole sentences. It's not a coherent argument.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

For comparison...

View attachment 113045View attachment 113046

This is what is making me side against him. This stat block is near identical.

 

[BookBarbarian]

(A name like "Illithid" is copyrightable, but a name like "Cyclops", which has been around for a very long time, isn't.

Frylock makes the case that a single word no matter how creative cannot be copryrighted, trademarked yes but not copyrighted. I have no idea if this is true however.

In fact that's the whole crux of his point. A discernible statblock must be so simple as to be completely uncopyrightable.

This popcorn is delicious btw,

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[tomBitonti]

Having read through the first blog post, I'm finding that I tend to agree with his conclusion, but find his reasoning to be terribly muddled. Not to mention, makes a couple of dubious claims.

I find his arguments that stat blocks serve a functional purpose works in his favor. That fits with the idea that there are many many stat block formats, and they tend to a common, functional, layout. But I find that his argument that describing a historical Cyclops is non-creative because none of the properties deviate (in any substantial way) from a historical Cyclops to be completely off point. I don't think it matters how original the idea is that is being expressed so far as deciding whether an expression of that idea is creative.

Thx!
TomB

 

[Parmandur]

Having read through the first blog post, I'm finding that I tend to agree with his conclusion, but find his reasoning to be terribly muddled. Not to mention, makes a couple of dubious claims.

I find his arguments that stat blocks serve a functional purpose works in his favor. That fits with the idea that there are many many stat block formats, and they tend to a common, functional, layout. But I find that his argument that describing a historical Cyclops is non-creative because none of the properties deviate (in any substantial way) from a historical Cyclops to be completely off point. I don't think it matters how original the idea is that is being expressed so far as deciding whether an expression of that idea is creative.

Thx!
TomB

There are recordings out there of Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford constructing monsters live: his argument falls apart entirely based on how they make these choices.

 

[Parmandur]

See here, for example:

 

[BookBarbarian]

There are recordings out there of Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford constructing monsters live: his argument falls apart entirely based on how they make these choices.

His argument seems to be “Is it creative?” is insufficient. One must then ask, “But is it creative enough?”'

What is your argument that these live creation processes are evidence that the information presented solely in the resulting statblock is "enough"?

Edit: I have know idea what "enough" is for a court of law anyway, so don't feel any particular need to convince me.

 

[LordEntrails]

I would be satisfied if they had a requirement that you be informed when your material is used by another party.

Do you understand the impracticality of this? This is like asking Twitch to pre-screen every live stream. The human resource capital required to screen every product and compare its content to every other product is huge. The investment in software and computer algorithms required to approach such a solution is prohibitive, and in itself would prove a significant concern for privacy if such capabilities exist because of what they could be used for.

Do you ask the Library of Congress to verify no book it accepts has any plagiarized content before they accept it into the archive? Of course not.

---

Anyway, to the OP.

I found flaws in Flaylock's arguments. For instance stating that public sources on a cyclops says they are strong and dumb, but he then goes on to say their is no creativity in the resulting stats. But why? I mean what mythological source says that a cylcop's strength is 22? Why not 21 or 23? There is a decision made their, just like with every other numerical value. They are not givens. The mechanics of the systems does not say, 'a strength of 22 is defined at the strength of am mythological one-eyed giant'.

Like every lawyer, he is arguing his case from a biased point of view. That the adversarial approach to law that the US system relies upon. He only states those views that seem to support his side, and ignores anything that pokes holes it.

 

[Lanefan]

If this thread is any indication of wider opinions out there, if his tactic is to turn public opinion in his favour to encourage an out-of-court settlement he might want to try another tactic.

@BookBarbarian - are you sharing that popcorn?