Is "Standard Action" Copyrighted?

[Evenglare]

I completely understand why the are doing it, but its just... eh.. it's so surreal to worry about that kind of stuff. It'd be like someone copyrighting a specific chord progression for a song, or
a genetic sequence in DNA (which actually was a real thing about a year ago if I recall correctly). I guess the worst part about it for me is that you really can't just release anything now days without worrying about repercussions. Like, if I were to make my own 4e clone, release it to the public FREE with a disclaimer saying that it was all a philanthropic fan work and credit is given to the creators, I would still be pursued because of copyright issues. I get it if someone is trying to make money off the work; but something by the fans, for the fans, and free should never be under scrutiny (IMO of course). I had a real big issue with how Monte Cook is handling his fan license, and how D&D 4th handled theirs. I LOVE those systems but hate the stranglehold over their IP. Over at MCG they explain their policies very well, and while I completely understand their position, I just wish more companies had things like the OGL and how N.E.W and O.L.D are completely open source.

I ranted way longer than I should have sorry. I just feel pretty strongly about this stuff for whatever reason.

 

[Zadmar]

I get it if someone is trying to make money off the work; but something by the fans, for the fans, and free should never be under scrutiny (IMO of course).

Even if it's free, it could still cost the copyright holder potential income (and trademarks infringement is even more serious, as you can lose a trademark if you don't defend it).

To give a real example, my Savage Worlds conversion of War of the Burning Sky is free, but it isn't standalone, so people still need the official version in order to run it - and I know at least a few people have purchased the official version specifically to run my conversion. So from one perspective, my conversion has put money into ENWorld's pockets that they wouldn't otherwise have received.

However if ENWorld had been planning to create their own Savage Worlds edition (like they've done for 4e and Pathfinder), my conversion would have reduced their number of potential customers - even if the ENWorld version was superior, unless it price-matched the D&D 3.5 version (at which point they might not be able to recoup their costs), some people would still use mine because it would be cheaper to run.

Even if ENWorld had no desire to create a Savage Worlds version themselves, it's always possible they might have been approached by a Savage Worlds licencee who wished to buy the rights to create their own version. That's far less likely to happen now that there's a free fan-made conversion available.

That's why I made sure I asked permission beforehand.

Personally, my main gripe isn't with copyright, but with patents. You can accidently infringe patents you've never even heard of, and in some cases you may even have come up with the idea first.

 

[delericho]

Like, if I were to make my own 4e clone, release it to the public FREE with a disclaimer saying that it was all a philanthropic fan work and credit is given to the creators, I would still be pursued because of copyright issues.

And rightly so. The issue is not whether your actions cause you to make money; it's whether they cause the copyright holder to lose money.

And although copyright terms are, IMO, way too long these days, the 6ish years since D&D 4e came about are well within most definitions of a reasonable term - it almost certainly should be protected.

 

[Umbran]

I completely understand why the are doing it, but its just... eh.. it's so surreal to worry about that kind of stuff. It'd be like someone copyrighting a specific chord progression for a song

That's not what happens. It isn't that they put *just* that chunk under copyright, specifically. The entire song is protected by copyright. Just as you can't steal a paragraph verbatim out of someone else's novel, you cant' steal a chunk out of someone else's song.

or
a genetic sequence in DNA (which actually was a real thing about a year ago if I recall correctly).

That case, as I recall it, is questionable for a different reason. Someone tried to legally protect a gene sequence *as it appears in nature*. They merely sequenced it, and tried to call it their own.

I guess the worst part about it for me is that you really can't just release anything now days without worrying about repercussions.

You share the world with seven billion people. Don't expect a lot of elbow room.

 

[Evenglare]

That's not what happens. It isn't that they put *just* that chunk under copyright, specifically. The entire song is protected by copyright. Just as you can't steal a paragraph verbatim out of someone else's novel, you cant' steal a chunk out of someone else's song.
.

Im completely aware that's now what happens, im saying Copyrighting a chord progression is LIKE copyrighting a set of words everyone uses..... I mean, clearly some of the copyright stuff is too strict these days because we have actual games that use an open source. Again, i understand completely why the do it, I just like and prefer the companies that are open because it seems philanthropic to me, and I enjoy it when people do something for the simple fact that they love what they do and don't care about money. But hey, that's just me. If you like money and want a tight grip on your stuff, go right ahead! :3

 

[Umbran]

Im completely aware that's now what happens, im saying Copyrighting a chord progression is LIKE copyrighting a set of words everyone uses.....

But then, you know that's not what happens with words, either. Copyright is for an *entire work*, not a few words. The question is whether, in context, your use for those terms violates the copyright or not.

I mean, clearly some of the copyright stuff is too strict these days because we have actual games that use an open source.

If that's what you think, then you likely misunderstand the purpose of copyright.

The idea is this - by default, if you create something, it should be yours, right? Except for purposes of criticism, parody, or academic study, there should not be any question that you are the one who controls your content, and you are the one who should get paid for its use, right? If you specifically choose to enter into other agreements, that's fine. But nobody should be allowed to take off with your ideas until such time as you willfully make that choice.

That's what copyright does for you. It gives you default protection, until such time as you willfully and actively enter into some other agreement. In order to do that, it needs to be pretty strict, or else you aren't protected, and folks could do an end-run around you and use the content whether you like it or not.

 

[Remus Lupin]

The digression into chord progressions reminds me of a number of the cases where that's been adjudicated over the last several decades, my favorite of which is the lawsuit over whether George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord" is a violation of the Shirelles' "He's So Fine" (If I recall correctly, Harrison lost). Then there's Queen's lawsuit over whether Vanilla Ice's bass line on "Ice Ice, Baby" stole from "Under Pressure.

 

[gamerprinter]

If naming a given time frame for a home-brew RPG game you're designing, just call it an "action", no reason 'standard' needs to even be there. Any actions that aren't standard might have a different adjective prefacing the word, like "quick action". I personally wouldn't be worried by using "standard action" if I thought it were best, but can't it be more generic than that? "Action" works fine, and no fear of TM/copyright issues.