Trying to make sense of Copyright Law

[Khuxan]

(I wasn't sure if this should go in the General RPG forum since it's about the law, not RPGs specifically)

I've followed the development of OSRIC with a lot of interest. From what I understand, US Copyright Law states that 'game rules' cannot be copyrighted and that if you reword the Product Identity (not in a OGL sense, but a general sense) of a company, you can use that reworked material as your own.

For example, if I wanted to use the Erase spell in my D&D non-OGL rip-off, would I be legally capable of using the spell below?

REMOVE TEXT
Transfiguration
Rank: Musician 1, Warlock/Witch 1
Parts: Sound, Movement
Time to Cast: A typical action
Distance: Near (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Aim: One scroll or two pages
Length: Immediate
Saving Roll: See text
Magicl Resistance: No

This spell clears text of both magical and nonmagical type from a scroll or from one or two pages of paper, tablets, or surfaces that are similar to these. You can remove explosive runes, a glyph of warding, a sepia snake sigil, or an arcane mark, but cannot remove illusory script or a symbol spell. If you touch the nonmagical writing and it is not being held by someone else, it is automatically removed. Otherwise, there is a 90% chance the nonmagical writing is removed.

You must touch magic writing to remove it. Furthermore, you must beat a DC of 15 with a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) (A natural 1 or 2 is always a failure on this check.) You accidentally trigger explosive runes, a glyph of warding, or a sepia snake sigil, if you fail this check.

P.S. Please note, I understand that what the law says and what is moral are sometimes different things. This is a thought exercise and I have no actual intention of stealing the material of any company.

 

[glass]

I don't know if what you were suggesting would be legal or not, but ISTM that it is an awful lot of effort to no real purpose. Anyway, this line...

Product Identity (not in a OGL sense, but a general sense)

caught my attention. As I understand it, Product Identity is a term defined by the OGL, so it only exists 'in the OGL sense'. There is no such thing as Product Identity 'in the general sense'.

IANAL, TINLA.


glass.

 

[Khuxan]

I don't know if what you were suggesting would be legal or not, but ISTM that it is an awful lot of effort to no real purpose.

I just wanted an example of keeping game rules while removing trade dress.

Anyway, this line...
caught my attention. As I understand it, Product Identity is a term defined by the OGL, so it only exists 'in the OGL sense'. There is no such thing as Product Identity 'in the general sense'.

Ah, that's true. The term I think I was looking for is "trade dress" or something similar. The 'distinct' part of a work.

IANAL, TINLA

Sure, I'll take that for granted for any post on this thread.