Sorcerers Apprentice
Hero
There's no such thing as a derivative trademark. Trying to use trademark law to claim ownership of something you're not entitled to is already gaming the system.
OGL FAQ
- Thread starter Morrus
- Start date
pogre
Legend
Best advice in the thread...
I notice your unintentional ironic use of entitled in this statement.
Sorcerers Apprentice
Hero
explain?
It appears that you’re saying the creator/legal IP holder is not entitled to the rights, while inferring that others can do what they want with it as long as numbers are filed off. If that isn’t correct, please clarify for me.explain?
Tell you what. Take the image of darth Vader (trademarked), create an action figure or write a game with that likeness, and sell it and see what happens. Even if you change the name to Garth Tater. Maybe you’ll be fine. Lucas was notorious with being OK with parodies, but Disney not so much. Especially something not a parody but a similar product competing in the same marketplace. I sure as heck wouldn’t take that risk myself.
Paizo and others have gotten away with using the likeness of beholders and mind flayers because the names are protected, but their images aren’t trademarked to the best of my knowledge. Which goes back to my original point. Trademark and copyright are different. And people shouldn’t assume they are or that fair use gives them permission (because they might also be under trademark).
Sorcerers Apprentice
Hero
Ah yeah that's what I meant. But there's nothing ironic about that, it's the law.
I've got no plans of making any Wtar Sars figures though. No business case for that, people want the real thing when it comes to such famous characters.
No, that's not the law. There is some grey area around Fair Use, but that's separate from Trademarks (which you yourself even admitted earlier). It seems very strange to me that you'd argue that the creator/legal IP holder doesn't have rights to their work, but the public does. IANAL, and I assumed you weren't either. Perhaps I was wrong about that assumption. But I can't find anywhere in the law that states the legal rights holder doesn't have rights and IP is available for anyone to use as long as you file off the #s under both copyright and trademark laws. My understanding is that things like The Lanham Act do the opposite of what you're assumptions of the law is.
As I mentioned earlier, filing serial #s does not work to circumvent trademark infringement. The very first bullet point is:
- How similar the marks are. They do not have to be identical.
But again, while sometimes copyright and trademark infringement are clear yes or no, there is a lot of grey area, and people should talk to an attorney.
You can't? I sure as heck can.
Aboleths. Ankhegs. Bulettes. Driders. Gibbering mouthers. Glabrezu. Gricks. Hezrou. Otyughs. Remorhazes. Ropers. Rust monsters. Sahuagin. Vrocks. Xorns.
All in the SRD. All original D&D monsters. None of those are in the public domain.
This is not nearly an exhaustive list.
Funny enough, Tim Kask owns the rights to the Bulette. The way the rights went in those first days of Dragon magazine, most reverted back to the creator. He advised as such as recently as a few weeks ago.
So I think it would be hilariously funny if Tim exercised his rights and WoTC had to pull all references to the Bulette.
Greg Benage
Legend
Landshark!
ersatzphil
Hero
"The Curmudgeon in the Cellar strikes again!"
::Hasbro exec angrily shakes his fist at the sky::
Lidgar
Legend
rknop
Adventurer
Most of the uproar is over the fact that WotC is trying to close the bigger playground.
They're not creating a smaller playground within a bigger playground. They're trying to close the playground (that the FAQ in the OP says they can't do), and replace it with a much more restrictive (and, frankly, unsafe) playground.
You are quoting a post I made back in December before all this current brouhaha came about with the leaks in January.
CapnZapp
Legend
Here's an even shorter FAQ.
Q. Should I avoid the OGL like the plague?
A. Yes. You should act as if all your current and future plans for D&D-related gaming materials, any edition, are suddenly turned into poison ash. You need to look for a completely different ruleset and set your gaming material in worlds unrelated to anything TSR or WotC have ever produced. And you need to accomplish this shift by the 13th of January this year. Good luck!
Q. Should I avoid the OGL like the plague?
A. Yes. You should act as if all your current and future plans for D&D-related gaming materials, any edition, are suddenly turned into poison ash. You need to look for a completely different ruleset and set your gaming material in worlds unrelated to anything TSR or WotC have ever produced. And you need to accomplish this shift by the 13th of January this year. Good luck!
Thomas Shey
Legend
Never underestimate playing the parody card, though as you say, its up to a court whether they buy it.
Thomas Shey
Legend
The core of the OGL has no IP in it at all. Its just a license for handling material that does. Various expressions of it do, but some of them have entirely different IP (which is why people completely outside the D&D-sphere are concerned about this--some of them used the OGL as a tool of convenience to tell people who wanted to make products for their games what the rules were, while including entirely different IP).
I'm assuming the ORC will similarly be basically a contract structure that tells people using it how the attached IP can and can't be used (and what parts) without including any IP intrinsic to it.
