I agree with independent production of similar material -- if you and I both come up with a concept and publish it around the same time, there's nothing actionable. But let's say you OGC'ed it and I PI'ed it, then a year later, another person wants to come around and use that concept again. I would hope that I would have some standing there.
And, of course, I can't slap PI on "John Smith" or "dragon" or something similar. But if I come up with a concept for a new, kick-ass type of dragon, I should be able to get PI on that and take action on anybody who tries to OGC it down the road.
If that's not the case, this is kinda scary for me as an up-and-coming publisher. I want to publish my d20 game knowing that my unique concepts for the setting will be protected, even though the rules and everything derived from them will be free and clear for others to use. I may feel, for example, that my alternate dwarven offshoot race is key to my setting, and except for the statblocks, I want to protect it. Now, if someone has a very similar idea around the same time, well, that's fine. But if someone comes out with something blatantly derivative a year from my publication date, that's just wrong.
Or am I misinterpreting all the licensing stuff I've read? Be gentle, I'm still a rookie.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] Independently Designed OGC/PI Clashes Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 13:53:27 EDT
In a message dated 6/27/03 1:35:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> <<Well....I would think that one would have to look at copyright and
> publication dates. If someone listed "lizard snark" as PI in 2001 and
> someone else listed it as OGC in 2002, then I would say that the PI
> designation should stand, even if the latecomer did not intend any copyright
> infringement. However, if "lizard snark" was OGC'ed first, then the PI
> designation by a later book would be invalid, since it's already out as open
> content.>>
Why should one or the other be valid? This is not trademark law. PI'ing something isn't the same as declaring it as a trademark.
If you and I live 10 thousand miles apart and neither of us meets or ever
reads each other's works, then if we can prove that we created our own works
independently, and they just happen to have some modicum of overlap, then neither
one of us has infringed on the copyrights of the other.
<<>
> The same would go for combining names and statblocks. If a name was PI'ed
> first, then the copyright holder to that PI wins.>>
So, what you are saying, is that if you PI the name "John Smith", and someone
doesn't even Section 15 your product, you feel that you have a case in court
to stop anyone else from using the character name "John Smith" in an OGL
product. Am I understanding you correctly?
<< If it was OGC'ed first,
> then another publisher can declare PI until he or she is blue in the face,
> but the name is already public domain and can be put on a different OGC
> statblock or for anything else.>>
If something is OGC'd it is not in the public domain. But I understand this
point. But I can't see "first move advantage" being at all relevant if there
is actually a strong reason to believe the two products were independently
developed.
That stuff would only come into play if one had a reason to disbelieve that the two products were independently created.
I have every reason to believe that if I pass out copies of a spell called
"Shot in the Dark" that has the name PI'd that somebody else in the far corners
of the world will eventually come up with another spell, independently
created, also called "Shot in the Dark" that does something different.
Lee
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
