-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Dymond
>In any case in trademark law this would be irelevant, all that is relevant is whether a consumer could be confused by the two uses and in a market this small I would guaratnee that a court would rule that there would be confusion. Independent development is most certainly relevant! Why do you think established musicians refuse to listen to or evaluate music for musicians that are trying to break into the business? If Johnny Guitargod publishes a song and Bobby Fanboy sues, claiming to have sent Johnny that song years before, Johnny's only defense (especially if the songs ARE similar) is independent development. He can acknowledge that he might have received a copy of the song, but has to be able to state that his policy is to protect himself by returning all music submissions unopened. >> 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 you read the clauses about PI then yes that is exactly what it is saying. Sort of. Declaring the character name, everything written about the character, and the distinctive likeness of the character PI prevents another author from using what you create without permission. The key there is "what you create". If Bob the Publisher sends out a product with an NPC named John Drake (a burnt-out schoolteacher) and I do a product with an npc named John Drake (a teen prodigy who is now a transvestite web designer), neither of us has a claim on the other - and the folks that own the rights to John Drake, the character in the '60s series "Secret Agent Man", don't have a claim on either of us. It is the entirety of the character that is protected by PI. A name is part of the character, and a strong argument can be made for names that are created by the author. The more unique and unusual the name, the stronger your PI claim. Harvey Lightfeather Codswallop McPuffelwomp is a lot easier to protect than John Smith. Merely using a name and declaring it PI is not enough to keep others from using the same name. It has to be a unique product of your creativity in order to be protected. If I can find your character's name in the phone book and our characters have nothing else in common, you have no standing for a PI claim. Besides, rather than trying to find ways to weasel around existing PI declarations, publishers should be creating their own PI and concentrating on making sure it's the highest quality they can make it. Bryan _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
