Is "Standard Action" Copyrighted?

[Foxwarrior]

I'm pretty sure it can't be, but I recently met some game designers who were making a 4e-like RPG, and they replaced all the 4e terms for things with other words they made up, out of fear of litigation.

For the purpose of this discussion, assume that the game isn't licensed under the OGL; the OGL explicitly gives you the right to use that sort of thing.

 

[Zadmar]

Copyright protection is not available for names, titles, or short phrases. In some cases trademark laws might apply, but I'd be extremely surprised if they could protect something as common as "standard action".

 

[Jan van Leyden]

A term like "Standard Action" isnt't protected by copyright, but perhaps by trademark law. If WotC hasn't claimed a trademark for "Standard Action" you can use the term freely, but have to make sure that you don't copy the definition of the term. You'd have to use different wording to define the same function.

And now I stand aside and let the actual lawyers tear my message to threads...

 

[Umbran]

You'd have to use different wording in the definition, and in general be careful that your use of the term in describing the system does not follow phrasing in the 4e books too closely.

 

[delericho]

If you're just asking out of interest, then no, "standard action" isn't covered by copyright.

If you're asking on behalf of someone actually writing a game: don't ask on a messageboard; go ask a lawyer.

 

[tomBitonti]

Not entirely on point, but your question made me think about the MTG patent:

http://www.smallentity.com/inventions-2/interesting-patent-magic-the-gathering/463

Thx!

TomB

 

[Sword of Spirit]

It's also worth noting that many companies will attempt to claim copyright or trademark over things that they legally aren't entitled to. If I recall, White Wolf had a bad habit of trying to trademark terms that were a reeeaaal stretch. Fortunately, those things usually get shot down in court, so just because they have a (TM) next to it doesn't mean it will stand up legally. Of course, you should talk to a lawyer if you're planning to do anything about it.

 

[tomBitonti]

Heh;

I'm reminded as well about the "Army Builder" kerfluffle.

E.g.:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100205/0129478063.shtml

 

[Evenglare]

Reading this topic shows how messed up the world is today. People are afraid to use the term standard action and must consult a lawyer before they can feel comfortable using the phrase. Just.... just... wow.

 

[delericho]

Reading this topic shows how messed up the world is today. People are afraid to use the term standard action and must consult a lawyer before they can feel comfortable using the phrase. Just.... just... wow.

While I agree with you in principle, that's another (and rather political) rant.

But bear in mind the context here - the OP was talking about people writing an RPG that is deliberately 4e-like, and specifically not using the OGL. That being the case, and assuming it's not just for personal use, then they really do need to consult a lawyer - not necessarily about "standard action", but definitely about the game as a whole. Because while it is indeed possible to clone it without violating copyright (due to the exception for game mechanics), they do need to be very careful in doing so.