[ORC] Vision for one or more ORC systems: convert the entire OGC archives from the start, using a massive team of converters

[bedir than]

But it cannot own its gamerules and concepts.

You keep asserting this without citing case law, and the reason you don't cite case law is because there's none that support the statement.

Extraordinarily rudimentary mechanics and recipes are not copyright-able. True. That's established.

There's nothing that says a cookbook is not copyright-able because they are. And the most basic ones are just collections of that which cannot be copyright-ed.

 

[Yaarel]

You keep asserting this without citing case law, and the reason you don't cite case law is because there's none that support the statement.

Quite the opposite.

That is part that is clear.

Copyright cannot protect "systems" and "concepts". The US laws including the Supreme Court have enforced this for over a century.

 

[bedir than]

Quite the opposite.

That is part that is clear.

Copyright cannot protect "systems" and "concepts". The US laws including the Supreme Court have enforced this for over a century.

Ok, is Chill Touch merely a concept?

Are you willing to go to court with your own money against a multi-billion dollar company when your company struggles to pay living wages just to say that the exact same concept, lore and mechanics are not a violation?
It's doubtful.
Because there is no relevant case law where mechanics and lore intertwine like they do in RPGs.

That's why the people who actually pay lawyers aren't constantly suing each other -- they aren't willing to risk their own money.

 

[Yaarel]

Ok, is Chill Touch merely a concept?

Are you willing to go to court with your own money against a multi-billion dollar company when your company struggles to pay living wages just to say that the exact same concept, lore and mechanics are not a violation?
It's doubtful.
Because there is no relevant case law where mechanics and lore intertwine like they do in RPGs.

That's why the people who actually pay lawyers aren't constantly suing each other -- they aren't willing to risk their own money.

Consider the Chronicles of Riddick with its "Necromonger" with various necromantic powers. The concept of Chill Touch is noncopyrightable.

The wording? Calling it "Ghost Touch" would end any dispute.

This is a matter of indy publishers combing out the SRDs.

But the fact is, the 5e SRD is now in the CC. So this kind of this nitpicking is practically moot.

 

[pemerton]

Consider the Chronicles of Riddick with its "Necromonger" with various necromantic powers. The concept of Chill Touch is noncopyrightable.

The wording? Calling it "Ghost Touch" would end any dispute.

This is a matter of indy publishers combing out the SRDs.

But the fact is, the 5e SRD is now in the CC. So this kind of this nitpicking is practically moot.

Suppose I sit down with the script of the Chronicles of Riddick and rewrite it in my own words, including a "Deathbringer" with various necromantic powers that include a "Fell Touch".

Am I infringing copyright or not?

I think I have a sense of how to go about answering that question. I'm not persuaded that you do.

 

[Yaarel]

Suppose I sit down with the script of the Chronicles of Riddick and rewrite it in my own words, including a "Deathbringer" with various necromantic powers that include a "Fell Touch".

Am I infringing copyright or not?

I think I have a sense of how to go about answering that question.

See, that is the difference.

The SRD isnt "Chronicles or Riddick". The SRD lacks the story telling, the distinctive characters, the copyrightable stuff.

The SRD is almost entirely noncopyrightable content: setting neutral game rules and unadorned public domain content like "elf" and "wizard".


Ironically, most of the SRD comes from Tolkien anyway. Tolkien would be in a better position to sue than Hasbro-WotC would be. And if switching "hobbit" to "halfling" was enough to avert a copyright issue then, the same is true now for rewording the SRD.

 

[Yaarel]

D&D 5e SRD has the "Dragonborn".

But you can be a Dragon. No problem.

Battlezoo Ancestries just did that. Be a Dragon. No problem.

 

[Yaarel]

I'm not persuaded that you do.

Please avoid the ad hominem.

There is stuff that you said that is simply off − like the photograph case. But I let it slide because it is more important to focus on the issues.

 

[gban007]

There are two separate issues. Contract law. Copyright law.

Hasbro-WotC cannot win the contract law, because the license was and is "open".

Hasbro-WotC cannot win the copyright law, because it is mostly public domain "systems", "concepts", and details from "public domain".




To clarify. 3PPs whose products have the OGL are stuck with it.

But any future products should avoid the OGL at all costs.




The case you cite refers to a photograph. Copyright law normally protects a specific work of photography (as long as it itself is not an image of a 2d image). The angle of perspective is considered an artists creative choice.

I only quickly skimmed thru the case you cited. But it seems to be the case of a business that modified an artists photo but failed to "transform" it enough.

The case doesnt apply. Because a photo actually is copyright protected. It was the actual photo itself that was modified insufficiently.

In other words, if the business took a new photo of the same bridge, there would be no issue.

Here with regard to the SRD, its open domain content lacks copyright protection in the first place. It is unlike a photograph that has copyright protection.

Anyone can use the same "concepts" and "game rules" − but not copy-paste the actual wording of the SRD.



Put it this way. The photographer owns the photo − but doesnt own the bridge that was photographed. If someone else photos the same bridge, it is fine.

Similarly, Hasbro-WotC owns the SRD. It owns the text. But it cannot own its gamerules and concepts.

Just on this one - reading the case further (and it was a bit confusing re claimant vs defendant) - the defendant took new photos, but then modified it to look somewhat like the original photo, and that was what breached copyright.

If look at the bottom of the page, can see the two photos above each other, showing slightly different angle, different time that photo was taken, and while similar style of bus, not the same bus with different markings etc.

 

[Yaarel]

Just on this one - reading the case further (and it was a bit confusing re claimant vs defendant) - the defendant took new photos, but then modified it to look somewhat like the original photo, and that was what breached copyright.

Most of the case is about whether a photograph can be copyrighted in the first place. The conclusion is, it can.

But the case is different for the SRD.

Game rules cannot be copyrighted.