((Necromancer)) OGL Question Re: Tome of Horrors (URGENT!)

[Frilf]

Now, IANAL and all that, and perhaps I am 100% wrong about this, so if there's any lawyers, your input would be most appreciated.

I agree here. I think some legal insight into this would be very helpful. Hal raises some very good points here and I've been wondering about some of these issues for a while myself. Now, I'm off to PI the word "the" before someone beats me to it!

 

[Turjan]

Demodand is a created word. However, it was created by Jack Vance, not TSR, and most definitely not Necromancer. I assume it would be legal to use the name - but what does it cost you to add a line into your legal appendix?

No, the word "Demodand" is a TSR invention. It is definitely a copy of Jack Vance's monster, the "Deodand" (note the difference). The word "Deodand" cannot be copyrighted, even not by Jack Vance, because it's a common word (in law). Whether TSR/WotC hold a copyright on "Demodand" though should be looked into before using the word. Maybe Necromancer had permission to use it.

 

[Turjan]

There's been a few cases lately of publishers PI-ing words that by all means should not be subjected to PI. Examples of this is Malhavoc PI-ing "Akashic" or The Le Games PI-ing "bauble." Both of these words are part of the common (though archaic) English language. That'd be like me PI-ing "Celtoi," when this is just the original Greek word for the Celtic peoples; it may be archaic, but it is still part of the common language. Now, I can certainly understand that I can't go and create a class called the "Akashic" without treading very carefully around Malhavoc's property, and I can't certainly go and create something called a "bauble of ancient power" (which is what should be PI, as a phrase, not as a word) without infringing The Le's PI, but I can certainly make as much use of the word Akashic (and the concepts behind the Akashic Records) and bauble in my product without any problem.

This is an interesting question. Has WotC PI'd the word "Druid"? Can I make a d20 class and call it "Druid"? I know that it would not be very convenient to make a class that has the same name as the WotC class, but I suppose it's pefectly valid. As far as "Akashic" goes, the whole internet is full of this word. There are domains with this name. There is a company called "Akashic Books". There is a band called "Akashic". I can only guess that trying to force a PI in this case should be considered futile, but then again, I'm no lawyer, and laws have often managed to surprise me so far . Any insight into this would be welcome .

 

[Andrew D. Gable]

This is an interesting question. Has WotC PI'd the word "Druid"? Can I make a d20 class and call it "Druid"? I know that it would not be very convenient to make a class that has the same name as the WotC class, but I suppose it's pefectly valid.

It is. Mongoose's Slaine, for one, has a class called the druid that is mechanically quite different from the WOTC druid.

Perhaps I should write to Necromancer and ask about how to go about this...

 

[Turjan]

Just for clarification: I'm aware that taking the "Druid" as a realistic example is somewhat useless, because this term is in the SRD, anyway. This means that a use by a third company in an OGL product is licensed, in case the correct procedure as indicated in the OGL is followed. I'm just not sure whether it's principally possible to PI mundane terms like "druid". "Akashic" is a bit more exotic, but nevertheless widely used in the New Age community. I didn't look whether the record company or the book company held any trademarks, though.

 

[HalWhitewyrm]

A few replies:

This is an interesting question. Has WotC PI'd the word "Druid"? Can I make a d20 class and call it "Druid"? I know that it would not be very convenient to make a class that has the same name as the WotC class, but I suppose it's pefectly valid.

As was noted above, using the word "druid" is kind of moot because it is part of the SRD, so if you're releasing a OGL product your s.15 will already contain the SRD copyright which covers the word "druid" in the context of the game. Also, as was pointed out, there have been alternate classes with the same name as a core SRD one, like the case of Slaine's druid, or even Monte Cook's alternate ranger. And no, you cannot PI the word "druid" (or bard, ranger, wizard, cleric, etc. for that matter) because it would be like me PI-ing the word "the," as was pointed above. You CAN PI words like "warmain" and "unfettered" (Arcana Unearthed), though not "witch" (also from Arcana Unearthed). Notice that this is why WotC decided to pick very specific things to PI when they released the last version of the d20 System Guide, things like "beholder," "displacer beast," "illithid," or specifc phrases containing the names of the planes like "Bleak Eternity of Gehenna," or "Peaceable Kingdoms of Arcadia;" you can still use the words Gehenna and Arcadia, but as nouns without the extra adjectives WotC put on them.

As far as "Akashic" goes, the whole internet is full of this word. There are domains with this name. There is a company called "Akashic Books". There is a band called "Akashic". I can only guess that trying to force a PI in this case should be considered futile, but then again, I'm no lawyer, and laws have often managed to surprise me so far . Any insight into this would be welcome .

Like I said, the word "Akashic" is part of the common parlance, so you can't just PI it indiscriminately. I don't know why Malhavoc went ahead and PI-ed it, other than they PI every name of anything in their books (spells, feats, places, people, classes, etc.--the infamous "crippled OGC" that one hears about sometimes, but that's another can of worms). I can understand a PI on the word "Akashic" in relation to a character class which taps into the collective unconscious that seems to describe what the "Akashic Records" are in order to gain access to knowledge stored in this vast library of experiences. And even that I would, personally, be iffy with because once you read what the Akashic Records are supposed to be it's almost a no-brainer coming up with the concept of a class (either core or prestige) that does exactly what I described. I do think, however, that you couldn't just go and call that class just "Akashic" without having to be very careful about infringing the OGL.

I'm just not sure whether it's principally possible to PI mundane terms like "druid". "Akashic" is a bit more exotic, but nevertheless widely used in the New Age community. I didn't look whether the record company or the book company held any trademarks, though.

No, you just can't go and claim as your Product Identity mundane terms just like that; the way I see it, if I can find it in the Unabridged Oxford English Dictionary (or the equivalent in another language as well, like the Dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy, for example) it is fair game and un-PI-able. Trademarks are different, though, becaue you can trademark a mundane term, but it has to be in a specifc context. The words "have," "it," "your," and "way" cannot be trademarked by themselves, but "Have it your way" as a phrase in the context of a Burger King ad can be (and is) trademarked. So the record company and the book company may indeed have trademarks on the word "Akashic" but it's going to be in relation to the band or the publishing company, and most likely it will be alongside a specific logotype of the word. PI and trademarks are not the same thing, though they behave similarly in a few cases.

Again, IANAL. I would love a lawyer to drop by and help sort this out.

 

[Melan]

No, the word "Demodand" is a TSR invention. It is definitely a copy of Jack Vance's monster, the "Deodand" (note the difference). The word "Deodand" cannot be copyrighted, even not by Jack Vance, because it's a common word (in law). Whether TSR/WotC hold a copyright on "Demodand" though should be looked into before using the word. Maybe Necromancer had permission to use it.

Oops. Thanks for the clarification, Turjan. I need to reread those books.