Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Iku Rex" data-source="post: 4039116" data-attributes="member: 752">A couple of points (IANAL):1. Every time RPG copyrights come up people start talking about &quot;derivative works&quot;. They're missing the point. A derivative work will contain copyrighted material from another work, but you can't infringe on copyright because you've made an &quot;unauthorized&quot; (if there is such a thing, legally speaking) derivative work. It's the other way around.2. Another common claim is that you can copy rule mechanics &quot;as long as you rewrite them&quot;. In fact, because of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merger_doctrine#Copyright" target="_blank">merger doctrine</a> in US copyright law you often don't even need a rewrite. (Case law example: <a href="http://www.law.uconn.edu/homes/swilf/ip/cases/morrissey.htm" target="_blank">Morrisey v. Procter &amp; Gamble</a>) This is an important point, since copyright infringement doesn't require word-for-word copying, only &quot;substantial similarity&quot;.Rewriting is generally a good idea anyway though, to avoid hidden pitfalls in the text. For example, I vaguely (no cite - it's been years) remember reading about a case where the defendant had copied and sold some sort of self-help [rule] system. He lost (in part) because he'd copied some very basic examples from the original. Those examples were not &quot;ideas&quot; or part of the &quot;system&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Iku Rex, post: 4039116, member: 752"] A couple of points (IANAL): 1. Every time RPG copyrights come up people start talking about "derivative works". They're missing the point. A derivative work will contain copyrighted material from another work, but you can't infringe on copyright [I]because[/I] you've made an "unauthorized" (if there is such a thing, legally speaking) derivative work. It's the other way around. 2. Another common claim is that you can copy rule mechanics "as long as you rewrite them". In fact, because of the [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merger_doctrine#Copyright]merger doctrine[/URL] in US copyright law you often don't even need a rewrite. (Case law example: [URL=http://www.law.uconn.edu/homes/swilf/ip/cases/morrissey.htm]Morrisey v. Procter & Gamble[/URL]) This is an important point, since copyright infringement doesn't require word-for-word copying, only "substantial similarity". Rewriting is generally a good idea anyway though, to avoid hidden pitfalls in the text. For example, I vaguely (no cite - it's been years) remember reading about a case where the defendant had copied and sold some sort of self-help [rule] system. He lost (in part) because he'd copied some very basic [I]examples[/I] from the original. Those examples were not "ideas" or part of the "system". [/QUOTE]

Verification