Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 1023171" data-attributes="member: 2013">IANAL...Ultimately, I think the question boils down to this:This outlines what can constitute Product Identity.&nbsp; In order for WotC to claim PI on the term &quot;d20,&quot; it must fall into one of the above areas.&nbsp; Let's play &quot;process of elimination.&quot;&quot;d20&quot; is not a product name.&nbsp; &quot;d20&quot; is not a product line name.&quot;d20&quot; is not a logo - there is a &quot;d20 logo&quot; but that is separate and independent from the term &quot;d20&quot;&quot;d20&quot; is not an identifying marks nor trade dress, as many items and systems use icosahedrons&quot;d20&quot; is neither an artifact nor creature nor character.&quot;d20&quot; is not a story, storyline, plot, thematic element, dialogue, incident, language, artwork, symbol, design, depiction, likeness, format, pose, concept, theme, or visual or audio representation.&quot;d20&quot; is not the name or description of a character, spell, enchantment, personality, team, persona, likeness, or special ability.&quot;d20&quot; is not the name of a plane, location, environment, creature, equipment, magical or supernatural ability or of a logo, symbol, or graphic design.&quot;d20&quot; is not a trademark nor a registered trademark (&quot;d20 System&quot; is, but &quot;d20&quot; is not)The term &quot;d20&quot; is not owned by WotC - it has demonstrably existed in common gaming parlance for years (Palladium books springs immediately to mind as a company that has used the term &quot;d20&quot; in its books for over a decade, I'm sure there are others).So it fails ALL of the tests for &quot;can this be claimed as PI?&quot;Furthermore, PI must specifically exclude Open Game Content (see the final line... &quot;and specifically excludes Open Game Content&quot;).&nbsp; &quot;d20&quot; was entered into Open Game Content as of version 3.0 of the OGL.&nbsp; Note that the generic term &quot;d20&quot; as used to represent an icosahedral die, was added to the canon of OGC in the 3.0 SRD, Basics section.&nbsp; From the 3.0 SRD, &quot;Basics&quot; Section:Clearly, the OGC designation in 3.0 included &quot;d20.&quot;Thus, because &quot;d20&quot; was Open Game Content, WotC cannot later call it Product Identity, per the terms of the Open Game License itself... because, in essence, &quot;Product Identity cannot include Open Game Content.&quot;I think it goes somewhat back to the &quot;infringing upon PI&quot; argument -&nbsp; if you create Joe the Fighter in 2001 and PI the name in Bob's Book Of Stuff, and I create another fighter that I name &quot;Joe the Fighter&quot; in 2002 and make him OGC in Billy's Book of Stuff, have I infringed your PI and am I in violation of the OGL?&nbsp; I believe the answer is, &quot;if I am (or possibly &quot;should be&quot;) aware of your PI, yes... otherwise, no.&quot;Let's reverse that.&nbsp; Suppose I create &quot;Joe the Fighter&quot; in 2001 and OGC him and later you create another &quot;Joe the Fighter&quot; in 2002 and decide to PI him.&nbsp; Is your PI designation made invalid?&nbsp; I think, again, the answer is, &quot;if you were aware of my Joe the Fighter, then your PI designation is invalid because you knew 'Joe the Fighter' was OGC and PI specifically excludes OGC... hence you can't PI it.&quot;&nbsp; Though, I assume if you weren't aware of my version of &quot;Joe the Fighter&quot; your claim might stand up.At the end of the day, it will be very hard for WotC to claim ignorance, since WotC itself released &quot;d20&quot; as Open Game Content.&nbsp; I have a hard time thinking they'll be able to convince anyone that they didn't know it was already Open Game Content - since they were the ones who made it so - when they released version 3.5 of the SRD.Again, IANAL, but claiming &quot;d20&quot; as PI seems to be an invalid claim on three counts... One: &quot;Product Identity&quot; ... specifically excludes the Open Game Content and &quot;d20&quot; was already Open Game Content (and WotC can't claim ignorance as they were the ones who released it).Two: &quot;Product Identity&quot; 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 -- &quot;d20&quot; falls under none of the acceptable categories and as such cannot be PI'd.Three: clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity -- WotC is not the owner of the term &quot;d20&quot; and therefore cannot designate it as Product Identity.Note that if any one of the three above holds true, than claiming &quot;d20&quot; is an invalid claim, as PI must be ALL of (not open), (one of the things on the list), (owned by WotC)... and my contention is that not only is it not all three, it is none of the three.Again, IANAL, etc. etc. but that's my take on the matter.&nbsp; I don't think WotC can claim &quot;d20&quot; as a PI.&nbsp; It will be interesting to see who takes up the challenge of publishing material containing the term &quot;d20&quot; and 3.5 compatible - under the assumption that &quot;d20&quot; cannot be a PI term - and runs afoul of WotC's lawyers.Personally, I think WotC had best drop this term from their PI list ASAP or specifically release it as OGC or they risk pissing off not just third party publishers, but the gaming industry as a whole.&nbsp; I also think that if they do not it will be interesting to see whether or not WotC decides to try to enforce &quot;selective compliance&quot; against those who use the term &quot;d20&quot; in their titles or advertising.&nbsp; If they do, I fully expect the bulk of the 3rd-party publishing community to abandon the d20 Logo altogether and come up with an alternative &quot;icosahedral&quot; logo - probably made into Open Game Content - and to basically drop future WotC SRD updates altogether.--The Sigil</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Sigil, post: 1023171, member: 2013"] IANAL... Ultimately, I think the question boils down to this: This outlines what can constitute Product Identity. In order for WotC to claim PI on the term "d20," it must fall into one of the above areas. Let's play "process of elimination." "d20" is not a product name. "d20" is not a product line name. "d20" is not a logo - there is a "d20 logo" but that is separate and independent from the term "d20" "d20" is not an identifying marks nor trade dress, as many items and systems use icosahedrons "d20" is neither an artifact nor creature nor character. "d20" is not a story, storyline, plot, thematic element, dialogue, incident, language, artwork, symbol, design, depiction, likeness, format, pose, concept, theme, or visual or audio representation. "d20" is not the name or description of a character, spell, enchantment, personality, team, persona, likeness, or special ability. "d20" is not the name of a plane, location, environment, creature, equipment, magical or supernatural ability or of a logo, symbol, or graphic design. "d20" is not a trademark nor a registered trademark ("d20 System" is, but "d20" is not) The term "d20" is [i]not[/i] owned by WotC - it has demonstrably existed in common gaming parlance for years (Palladium books springs immediately to mind as a company that has used the term "d20" in its books for over a decade, I'm sure there are others). So it fails ALL of the tests for "can this be claimed as PI?" Furthermore, PI must specifically exclude Open Game Content (see the final line... "and specifically excludes Open Game Content"). "d20" was entered into Open Game Content as of version 3.0 of the OGL. Note that the generic term "d20" as used to represent an icosahedral die, was added to the canon of OGC in the 3.0 SRD, Basics section. From the 3.0 SRD, "Basics" Section: Clearly, the OGC designation in 3.0 included "d20." Thus, because "d20" was Open Game Content, WotC cannot later call it Product Identity, per the terms of the Open Game License itself... because, in essence, "Product Identity cannot include Open Game Content." I think it goes somewhat back to the "infringing upon PI" argument - if you create Joe the Fighter in 2001 and PI the name in Bob's Book Of Stuff, and I create another fighter that I name "Joe the Fighter" in 2002 and make him OGC in Billy's Book of Stuff, have I infringed your PI and am I in violation of the OGL? I believe the answer is, "if I am (or possibly "should be") aware of your PI, yes... otherwise, no." Let's reverse that. Suppose I create "Joe the Fighter" in 2001 and OGC him and later you create another "Joe the Fighter" in 2002 and decide to PI him. Is your PI designation made invalid? I think, again, the answer is, "if you were aware of my Joe the Fighter, then your PI designation is invalid because you knew 'Joe the Fighter' was OGC and PI specifically excludes OGC... hence you can't PI it." Though, I assume if you weren't aware of my version of "Joe the Fighter" your claim might stand up. At the end of the day, it will be very hard for WotC to claim ignorance, since WotC itself released "d20" as Open Game Content. I have a hard time thinking they'll be able to convince anyone that they didn't know it was already Open Game Content - since they were the ones who made it so - when they released version 3.5 of the SRD. Again, IANAL, but claiming "d20" as PI seems to be an invalid claim on three counts... One: [b]"Product Identity" ... specifically excludes the Open Game Content[/b] and "d20" was already Open Game Content (and WotC can't claim ignorance as they were the ones who released it). Two: [b]"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[/b] -- "d20" falls under none of the acceptable categories and as such cannot be PI'd. Three: [b]clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity[/b] -- WotC is not the owner of the term "d20" and therefore cannot designate it as Product Identity. Note that if [b]any one[/b] of the three above holds true, than claiming "d20" is an invalid claim, as PI must be ALL of (not open), (one of the things on the list), (owned by WotC)... and my contention is that not only is it not all three, it is none of the three. Again, IANAL, etc. etc. but that's my take on the matter. I don't think WotC [b]can[/b] claim "d20" as a PI. It will be interesting to see who takes up the challenge of publishing material containing the term "d20" and 3.5 compatible - under the assumption that "d20" cannot be a PI term - and runs afoul of WotC's lawyers. Personally, I think WotC had best drop this term from their PI list ASAP or specifically release it as OGC or they risk pissing off not just third party publishers, but the gaming industry as a whole. I also think that if they do not it will be interesting to see whether or not WotC decides to try to enforce "selective compliance" against those who use the term "d20" in their titles or advertising. If they do, I fully expect the bulk of the 3rd-party publishing community to abandon the d20 Logo altogether and come up with an alternative "icosahedral" logo - probably made into Open Game Content - and to basically drop future WotC SRD updates altogether. --The Sigil [/QUOTE]

Verification