D&D General What monster names are public domain?

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes, but thst is my point: the answer To your question is "what WotC did not designate as PI." They made that decision by picking out what they were certain wasn't public domain.

"X is definitely public domain" + "Y is definitely not public domain" =/= "The entire space of WotC works."

Which is the whole point. Anything ambiguous has to be treated with ultra super care, and (in general) is probably best to avoid or rewrite. That's the actual reason the OGL had value: as long as you could abide by its restrictions, it let you work without fear that the edge cases, the ambiguities, the "well it might not be...but it might be..." things, wouldn't come to bite you in the butt.

When in doubt about whether a thing you intend to create and make money off of is a legal adaptation...it's best to assume the least-favorable conditions. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Krachek]

An honest search on Google should clear the status of most monsters.

 

[bedir than]

As noted above, Gold and Bronze dragons predate D&D by a minimum of seven years (1967 for Dragonriders of Pern.) Metallic-type dragons as a general concept probably can't be copyrighted by D&D's rights-holder, and given their work has existed alongside McCaffrey's for the former's entire run, it would be a real stretch. Doesn't mean people wouldn't try per se, but even if they won they'd run the risk of McCaffrey's children/estate going after them on the precedent established by their case.

ah, so not a D&D thing, but not public domain in most expressions

 

[Parmandur]

"X is definitely public domain" + "Y is definitely not public domain" =/= "The entire space of WotC works."

Which is the whole point. Anything ambiguous has to be treated with ultra super care, and (in general) is probably best to avoid or rewrite. That's the actual reason the OGL had value: as long as you could abide by its restrictions, it let you work without fear that the edge cases, the ambiguities, the "well it might not be...but it might be..." things, wouldn't come to bite you in the butt.

When in doubt about whether a thing you intend to create and make money off of is a legal adaptation...it's best to assume the least-favorable conditions. Wouldn't you agree?

Well, that's why it is still valuable, yes.

 

[Yora]

The only declared IP is

• Beholder
• Gauth
• Carrion Crawler
• Displacer Beast
• Githyanki
• Githzerai
• Mind Flayer (Illithid)
• Umber Hulk
• Slaad
• Yuan-Ti

everything else that isnt a Name is good, although the specific expression (blue dragons breath lightning) is probably copyright

Displacer beast won't fly. The person making that list might not have known it, but they are just coeurls from Voyage of the Space Beagle. (As are xill, which aren't on the list.)

 

[Morrus]

Displacer beast won't fly. The person making that list might not have known it, but they are just coeurls from Voyage of the Space Beagle. (As are xill, which aren't on the list.)

We’re talking about the names not the concepts.

 

[Matt Thomason]

Displacer beast won't fly.

Of course it won't, it only moves along the ground!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, that's why it is still valuable, yes.

It was, until WotC made clear that the current management don't believe it's irrevocable. Unless and until they say otherwise, the "eliminate the ambiguity" value of the OGL has been lost. "We won't touch the OGL" is not "the OGL cannot ever be touched, which we will recognize in formal, legally-binding terms." So long as we live only on the former, the "we pinky-swear we won't break anything!" stuff, the OGL remains heavily devalued. Perhaps not totally valueless, but quite close.

 

[Jer]

We’re talking about the names not the concepts.

Wouldn't you want to look at the trademarks then? I'm pretty sure that if you separate the generic names that Wizards has for things from their specific implementation and apply them to a different concept, they couldn't do anything.

Like if I use the name "beholder" for a humanoid creature with no face but has a hundred eyes spinning around it, my understanding is that copyright is meaningless for covering this kind of thing. Or if I had a creature called an owlbear that was a tiny bear with owl wings instead of its front legs.

IIRC that's why Marvel could create a character named Captain Marvel even though DC had a pre-existing Captain Marvel that they'd purchased from Fawcett. Copyright couldn't stop them as long as it was a different character. But Marvel couldn't put out a book named Captain Marvel until DC let the trademark lapse on the name.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

We’re talking about the names not the concepts.

Though (slightly off-topic) even the form is likely not under WotC's control. Final Fantasy has been using the exact image of the displacer beast, albeit with other colors besides black, for ages under its original name, "coeurl." Though other than their physical appearance, Final Fantasy coeurl have little in common with A.E. van Vogt's creatures or D&D's displacer beasts.

(Which also just goes to show that copying the form of something isn't always a deal-breaker either: D&D just changed the name and got away with it.)