D&D General What monster names are public domain?

[seebs]

Something could be 100% unambiguously public domain, and they could still have put it in "product identity" and claimed that the terms of their license required you to act as though it were theirs. Could they win a lawsuit over you using that item? Maybe not! But they could credibly threaten one, which is what mostly matters.

 

[vigames]

Right, it is a little naive to just look at the name.
Balor the Brontosaurus is fine, but if you create a Balor that is a demon with a fiery multi-tailed whip and proceed to effectively rip off all the same qualities of the D&D Balor, well you better be using the OGL.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Right, it is a little naive to just look at the name.
Balor the Brontosaurus is fine, but if you create a Balor that is a demon with a fiery multi-tailed whip and proceed to effectively rip off all the same qualities of the D&D Balor, well you better be using the OGL.

Really, no. If D&D can get away with a Balor that is a demon with a fiery multi-tailed whip, despite the best efforts of the Tolkien estate, you can too.

If it's not a registered trademark or a direct copy of a chuck of text, intellectual property law is weak. Something TSR proved in the early years of D&D.

 

[ValamirCleaver]

if you create a Balor that is a demon with a fiery multi-tailed whip and proceed to effectively rip off all the same qualities of the D&D Balor, well you better be using the OGL.

Because both the name/word Balor and the concept of a powerful demon of fire & darkness armed with a multi-tailed whip originated in D&D?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Because both the name/word Balor and the concept of a powerful demon of fire & darkness armed with a multi-tailed whip originated in D&D?

Yeah, even the Tolkien estate (notorious for their efforts to protect things like "mithril") cannot enforce anything on the name Balor, because it comes from Irish mythology. That's why D&D used it, because originally it was "Balrog" and the Tolkien estate sued.

That said, "Balor" as very specifically a winged being of fire and darkness that uses a whip? Might be a bit dicey. The Balrog case implies that keeping the appearance but changing the name was sufficient to avoid copyright issues, and as you say the idea of a big strong fire demon with a whip is probably not copyrightable in general, only in specific expressions (e.g., individual pieces of art, not all possible depictions that meet the description.) But as with most things in this field, unless you're sure a suit wouldn't happen, you're at risk of getting slapped with one, and most small studios could never afford to defend themselves even if they would win.

 

[ValamirCleaver]

Yeah, even the Tolkien estate (notorious for their efforts to protect things like "mithril") cannot enforce anything on the name Balor, because it comes from Irish mythology. That's why D&D used it, because originally it was "Balrog" and the Tolkien estate sued.

I wish individuals would stop repeating this because that is not what happened. The Tolkien Estate did not nor did the Tolkien Trust sue TSR. The Saul Zaentz Company d/b/a Tolkien Enterprises (and later known as Middle-earth Enterprises) did send a Cease & Desist notice regarding TSR making use of things sourced from Tolkien's Middle-earth.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

I’m pretty sure none of the monster names are trademarks.

i believe some monster names were trademarked by TSR for their LJN action figures c.1983, but that’s probably expired. I’m imagining something like BRONZE DRAGONtm and NIGHTMAREtm. Not sure tho.

As for Public Domain…To state the obvious: Google Books search and Project Gutenberg. Good question though.

Would be great to make a Public Domain monster list tho. Echohawk?

 

[amethal]

Yeah, even the Tolkien estate (notorious for their efforts to protect things like "mithril") cannot enforce anything on the name Balor, because it comes from Irish mythology. That's why D&D used it, because originally it was "Balrog" and the Tolkien estate sued.

You can also have a group of dwarves called Thorin, Dwalin, Bifur, Bofur, Bombur, Gloin, Dori, Nori, Ori and Kili if you want, but not Balin (and possibly not Oin or Fili either).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You can also have a group of dwarves called Thorin, Dwalin, Bifur, Bofur, Bombur, Gloin, Dori, Nori, Ori and Kili if you want, but not Balin (and possibly not Oin or Fili either).

Sure. They're all names taken from Beowulf, which Tolkien was a preeminent scholar of. (I believe his translation is still considered authoritative, or at least very significant.)

Might want to make them more diverse than just dwarves though, just to be safe.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yeah, even the Tolkien estate (notorious for their efforts to protect things like "mithril") cannot enforce anything on the name Balor, because it comes from Irish mythology. That's why D&D used it, because originally it was "Balrog" and the Tolkien estate sued.

That said, "Balor" as very specifically a winged being of fire and darkness that uses a whip? Might be a bit dicey. The Balrog case implies that keeping the appearance but changing the name was sufficient to avoid copyright issues, and as you say the idea of a big strong fire demon with a whip is probably not copyrightable in general, only in specific expressions (e.g., individual pieces of art, not all possible depictions that meet the description.) But as with most things in this field, unless you're sure a suit wouldn't happen, you're at risk of getting slapped with one, and most small studios could never afford to defend themselves even if they would win.

What about if it was called Brian? A name in standard usage is a name in standard usage. And I'm having a hard time finding ANY examples of a court finding for the plaintiff on grounds of narrative, cosmetic or mechanical similarity.

There is a reason WotC didn't include Balor on their list.