OGL and copyright

[Morrus]

Other criticism is based around the part of the d20 System Trademark License which defines "Open Game Content" to include game mechanics and purports to license it. It is widely believed that game mechanics are uncopyrightable in the USA, and according to a circular on the US Copyright Office's website [3], "Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles."

3 is this

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.

so that i think gives me a little more fresh air. still i think complying with ogl is the best thing to do, but part of it seems kindof.... un protected by the law. I do realize though my situation is still a gray one.

A fascinating lecture in copyright law but, as my post above mentions, copyright law has nothing to do with the situation. You need to start by understanding the diferences beteen copyright law and contract law. You then need to understand that by using the d20 STL, you are entering into a contract where you agree not to use the specified material. Whether or not that material is copyrighted, trademarked or patented is irrelevant. All that matters is that it is mentioned in the contract which you have agreed to.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think this is very important. The most important thing about the OGL & WotC is that WoTC, unlike T$R, have consistently avoided acting like jerks over their IP. They have not been threatening people, especially they have not been threatening members of the public over non-commercial use. So I think they're entitled to some good will when it comes to dealing with the OGL and their materials. For a start, the more the gaming community respects WoTC for not acting like jerks, the better the chance that they'll go on not acting like jerks.

QFT.

The OGL is the most important thing to happen to gaming since the inception of gaming itself. WotC deserves major Kudos for publishing the SRD, regardless of what you think about any other decisions they have made regarding content.

RC

 

[Ranger REG]

Patent law is not copyright law. But many find that patent questionable, like many. And patent law is, on a large scale, in need of reform IMO. But that's an opinion I come about by being a software engineer vice having anything to do with gaming...

Unfortunately, patent law is a low priority. Besides, it has a short lifespan (about 20 years).

 

[Delta]

And there's a simple reason for that - the issue has nothing to do with copyright law. It has to do with contract law (the d20 STL is a contract). You get to use the d20 logo in exchange for agreeing not to use material wotC don't want you to. If you don't want to be bound that that, don't use the logo. Simple.

Well, it would have something to do with the situation if someone proposed "I won't use the OGL or d20 System license at all; instead I'll rely on game mechanics not being copyrightable, and go use them anyway".

In post #36, the OP seemed to be considering whether he would or would not select to be "complying with ogl", which is what I was responding to.

 

[Delta]

Unfortunately, patent law is a low priority. Besides, it has a short lifespan (about 20 years).

Way off topic now, but -- The problem is, 20 years is a short lifespan in an industry like manufacturing. But, it's almost eternally long in an industry like software development. (As measured in number of product improvement cycles.)

 

[Ranger REG]

Way off topic now, but -- The problem is, 20 years is a short lifespan in an industry like manufacturing. But, it's almost eternally long in an industry like software development. (As measured in number of product improvement cycles.)

So, do you want special treatment for software development with regards to the patent law?

 

[Delta]

So, do you want special treatment for software development with regards to the patent law?

To quote Wikipedia: "There is intense debate as to what extent either software patents or patents on computer-implemented inventions should be granted, if at all."

The USPTO (the American patent office) has traditionally not considered software to be patentable because by statute patents can only be granted to "processes, machines, articles of manufacture, and compositions of matter". In particular patents cannot be granted to "scientific truths" or "mathematical expressions" of them. This means that most of the fundamental techniques of software engineering have never been patented.

The USPTO maintained this position, that software was in effect a mathematical algorithm, and therefore not patentable into the 1980s. The position of the USPTO was challenged with a landmark 1981 Supreme Court case, Diamond v. Diehr...

I'll let you read more in the excellent article there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent

 

[S'mon]

Well, it would have something to do with the situation if someone proposed "I won't use the OGL or d20 System license at all; instead I'll rely on game mechanics not being copyrightable, and go use them anyway".

Yep. If you want to do this, you need a good knowledge of what copyright covers, what it doesn't cover, what lawyers may claim it covers, and what lawyers might be able to persuade a court of first instance it covers, which will vary a lot by jurisdiction. You could legally write a drow sourcebook or scenario without infringing WoTC copyright (best to call it Dark Elf sourcebook, mind you), certainly under UK law, but defending an action would be costly. For most commercial purposes I'd say the OGL was a much safer bet.

 

[Voadam]

First, you and Psion are right, the word "swashbuckler" isn't PI. What I meant was, if you created an NPC called a Swashbuckler, with all the same capabilities of the Swashbuckler listed, you'd be using WotC PI (class abilities are specifically listed as PI).

Second, you suggested in your first post that instead of giving the class abilities you could simply reference the book in which the class appears. Book titles are both PI and presumably trademark of WotC. Which is why you would have to seek permission.

Re-read the definition of PI

""Product Identity" means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content."

Most WotC books do not identify anything as PI as they are not published under the OGL. Many have a statement that nothing in them is OGC, but that is different from identifying anything in the book as PI.

And book names are not automatically or ususally trademarked. You'd have to look up the individual title.

 

[JPL]

As a lawyer, here's a point I feel compelled to make every time there's a hint of someone thinking about pushing the limits based on their independent legal research (i.e., reading Wikipedia and asking around on a message board):

Think real hard about what you would actually do if you got a cease-and-desist notice from Hasbro, or a notice that you had violated the terms of the d20 license and had to pulp all your product. If you are really prepared to stand your ground and deal with a lawsuit and (a temporary order forbidding you to sell your product while the suit proceeds), then go ahead, but understand, even if you think you would ultimately be vindicated in a court of law, it can be a long and difficult road to get there.

Could someone dig up that thread from a year or so back where those idiots decided they were gonna use mind flayers and beholders and other protected IP in their d20 product? We covered a lot of this in great detail, and Moon-Lancer could benefit from a read-through...