Gee, and I thought that PI simply belongs to its contributor unless
otherwise noted. It really is (or should be) that simple.
Joe, I think the point raised is whether one can "own" something that would de jure be in the public domain in other branches of IP law (because it is not covered by patent, trademark, or copyright).
The inquiry goes something like this. I write a book. Do I own the copyright on the book? Yes. Now, John Doe is a character in the book who is fully fleshed out. Do I own the copyright on the character? Yes. But do I own the name "John Doe"? And that's where the line of question starts to break down. Clearly you own it in context of the character description, etc. But taken in an atomized form by itself, unless you can find some way to trademark it (like creating a "John Doe" trademarked line of RPG supplements), the name "John Doe" is in the public domain, anyone in the RPG industry (though it may be claimed in other venues like television -- one of my favorite shows :-)...
That is the nature of "ownership" in copyright law. "Owner" in the OGL is not fully defined. How does one own a pose or a theme? We are left to wonder. But it is clearly the "owner" of the PI who has the rights to enforce the license against PI infringement.
So, it seems that while a PI "owner" may simply be the originator of this particular instance of a concept, pose, etc., some have inferred that you must be a copyright or trademark owner to own PI.
In fact, it seems that while you must be a copyright owner or trademark owner to contribute OGC, no similar definition is given re: PI ownership.
I find it hard to believe that the intent of the license is to limit itself to copyrightable or trademarkable properties. If it was meant to do that, then there would be no reason to have a laundry list of things that are and are not copyrightable.
Instead, it lists things that are frequently not normally subject even to a patent: a pose, a theme, etc.
Concepts certainly aren't subject to copyright or trademark except when they are rendered in a fixed form. I can't register as a trademark the very notion of evil in the universe. I could register the word, or a logo, etc., but not the concept.
So taken in context of the greater license, I think that "ownership" regarding PI need not be limited to copyrightable or trademarkable matter. While OGC dedication expressly requires some copyright or trademark over the OGC'd products, PI is not declared to have a similar requirement. One possible inference is that this omission was intentional precisely because PI is intended to protect the otherwise unprotectable, as well as to carve out certain already protected forms of IP from reuse.
I will not say that this is the only interpretation of the license, but I think it is non-trivial to suss out what "owner" is intended to mean here re: PI.
Lee
