The Ooze monster.

[Snake87]

Hey Everyone,

I asked a bunch of questions before and I got a lot of help, so here I am again.

Anyway, I wanted to use "Ooze" as a beastiary/creature type in my project, but I was afraid of making it too similar to WoTC. I know it is an actual word and can be reproduced in other products, but I haven't seen it much in other games/writings and didnt want to draw too much of a blatent line from my game to theirs.

So the question is, would it be a mistake or law suit waiting to happen? I talked to a lawyer about product identity, but I wanted other input on this in particular.

Thanks everyone!

 

[pawsplay]

If you created an Ooze type and wrote up a monster, Dismal Dessert, you might have a problem. Just the word "ooze" though is fundamentally uncopyrightable and does not look like a viable trademark to me. If it makes you feel any better, look for other gaming products that use the word "ooze" so you will know how to respond to a C&D.

 

[Marius Delphus]

If this is the same non-OGL product from the earlier thread, as long as your creature statistics (readouts, whatever) don't *look* like OGL stat block, it's probably okay.

IA(still)NAL, but personally, I would say that as you get farther and farther away from the OGL *mechanics*, that makes it more and more "acceptable" to have some of the same *words*.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[frankthedm]

blob, flem, goo, goop, glop, mucus, muck are some of the "slime" words wotc/tsr did not use IIRC.

 

[pawsplay]

Amoeboid is a fun word.

 

[Kafen]

The other day, I almost stepped on a jelly fish while on the beach. Odd, it is the wrong time of year for them here.



I think of the ochre jelly in the older games. Then, I remind people of the Green Slime - the 1968 movie version. How about the vintage 1958 Blob movie?

Anywho, the point is that my local newspaper ran an ad for a showing of the Blob at a classic movie night for a local cinema. The advertising words were vintage cheesey, but... "the Blob oozes it's way through the helpless" ...was part of the advertising. If you actually do a Google search "the blob oozes", you will find common usage of the term to describe a monster that predates the OGL. As a sci-fi buff, I assure you that my ooze creatures also predate the arch-types you see in the OGL. So, the OGL can effectively claim a monster type for itself within the system, but the OGL can not claim any sort of actual ownership to the term in my opinion. The usage of the term ooze is part of American pop culture....and, pending your views on vintage horror films, a gift to the world.

Sooo, I would risk using ooze myself. Mind you, the creature type would not be anything like the OGL SRD version. It would be closer to something from GURPS in my world's custom monster catalog.

 

[Marius Delphus]

The word's existence in the SRD does not make it a trademark.

Using it in a way that doesn't copy "expressions" from the SRD is not a violation of copyright.

 

[Morrus]

If you're not using the OGL or GSL, you're good to go. Use the word "ooze" however you like.

If you're using the OGL, you're still good to go. If you're using the GSL, you can't use it in the same way as 4E as you'd be changing a defined game term. But you can create your own game term which includes ooze. "Snake87 Ooze" would be fine.

 

[Snake87]

Ooze!

Thank you everyone for your responses (including pawsplay's second post ).

I've always liked the word ooze for blob-type monsters, but I was mostly worried about creating too much of a similarity between my system and the SRD. I don't think that's going to be an issue anymore.

My Ooze wont look anything like the traditional D&D oozes and wont even have ooze in their name. The stat blocks may look a little similar, but everything is named something else and functions differently.

Anyway, thanks again!