Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Frylock's Gaming & Geekery Challenges WotC's Copyright Claims
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tomBitonti" data-source="post: 7786593" data-attributes="member: 13107"><p>Here's a thing: The stat blocks aren't an exact reproduction, nor is the ability text or attack text exact text copies. I thought that game rules weren't copyrightable, just their expression. Then, if its a game rule that cyclops has 22HP, that is not copyrightable. However, the particular format that one uses to display that information is copyrightable. Similarly, the text which was created for the new stat blocks are copyrightable.</p><p>The question would be whether the new expression is too similar to the previous one. (A name like "Illithid" is copyrightable, but a name like "Cyclops", which has been around for a very long time, isn't.)</p><p></p><p>Then, if there is a game mechanic (rule) which gives a Cyclops 22HP, then that rule is not copyrightable (although "literary, artistic, or musical form" expressions of the rule are). By the "stick figure" argument, saying "A cyclops has 22 HP," even though a literary statement, lacks sufficient creativity, and is not copyrightable. I have no clear sense if this true, and would need to search for precedents to have a better idea.</p><p></p><p>That being said, one possible weakness of his defense would be that certain defined terms, such as "Multiattack" are creative terms. Note the distinction between the actual rule ("The creature can make multiple attacks.") and the choice of "Multiattack" to label this rule. The choice of label seems to be creative. However, while this might work for "Multiattack", it doesn't seem to work for "Poor depth perception".</p><p></p><p>Thx!</p><p>TomB</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tomBitonti, post: 7786593, member: 13107"] Here's a thing: The stat blocks aren't an exact reproduction, nor is the ability text or attack text exact text copies. I thought that game rules weren't copyrightable, just their expression. Then, if its a game rule that cyclops has 22HP, that is not copyrightable. However, the particular format that one uses to display that information is copyrightable. Similarly, the text which was created for the new stat blocks are copyrightable. The question would be whether the new expression is too similar to the previous one. (A name like "Illithid" is copyrightable, but a name like "Cyclops", which has been around for a very long time, isn't.) Then, if there is a game mechanic (rule) which gives a Cyclops 22HP, then that rule is not copyrightable (although "literary, artistic, or musical form" expressions of the rule are). By the "stick figure" argument, saying "A cyclops has 22 HP," even though a literary statement, lacks sufficient creativity, and is not copyrightable. I have no clear sense if this true, and would need to search for precedents to have a better idea. That being said, one possible weakness of his defense would be that certain defined terms, such as "Multiattack" are creative terms. Note the distinction between the actual rule ("The creature can make multiple attacks.") and the choice of "Multiattack" to label this rule. The choice of label seems to be creative. However, while this might work for "Multiattack", it doesn't seem to work for "Poor depth perception". Thx! TomB [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Frylock's Gaming & Geekery Challenges WotC's Copyright Claims
Top