Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="HalWhitewyrm" data-source="post: 1850244" data-attributes="member: 4046">Yeah, but it doesn't just work like that. If Andrew (or anyone for that matter) was going to use (example) a Daemon: Cacodaemon from ToH, then he would absolutely have to put the Cacodaemon's copyright in his OGL. But if he's just using the word daemon (and this is assuming he has not used absolutely anything at all from any entry with the name daemon from ToH) there is no need to put any copyright info because the word daemon is not anyone's copyright or PI, for that matter. You can certainly copyright and/or PI a specific use of the word daemon (say, Boogerdaemon), but not the word itself since it is a word in common parlance. I don't know that much about demodand, so I won't comment on it.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 &quot;Akashic&quot; or The Le Games PI-ing &quot;bauble.&quot; Both of these words are part of the common (though archaic) English language. That'd be like me PI-ing &quot;Celtoi,&quot; 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 &quot;Akashic&quot; without treading very carefully around Malhavoc's property, and I can't certainly go and create something called a &quot;bauble of ancient power&quot; (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.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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="HalWhitewyrm, post: 1850244, member: 4046"] Yeah, but it doesn't just work like that. If Andrew (or anyone for that matter) was going to use (example) a Daemon: Cacodaemon from ToH, then he would absolutely have to put the Cacodaemon's copyright in his OGL. But if he's just using the word daemon (and this is assuming he has not used absolutely anything at all from any entry with the name daemon from ToH) there is no need to put any copyright info because the word daemon is not anyone's copyright or PI, for that matter. You can certainly copyright and/or PI a specific use of the word daemon (say, Boogerdaemon), but not the word itself since it is a word in common parlance. I don't know that much about demodand, so I won't comment on it. 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. 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification