<<Yes or no? You can agree, in a contract, to never use the word "Zeus" in
your products (for some unspecified consideration)?
If you answer Yes? Then obviously something public domain can be made off
limits in a contract. Since one piece of public domain speech can be
disallowed by contract, why can't any other public domain entity be
declared off limits by the OGL (a specific contract)?>>
It is not a question whether or not you can agree to make something public domain off limits in a given contract. Of course, you can waive rights. The question is whether the OGL allows it. I was simply pointing out that another list member noted "ownership" as a requirement for some clauses of the OGL and noted that in order to exercise certain rights you might have to "own" the item you are listing as PI.
He claimed that since the OGL doesn't define "owner" we are left to trademark & copyright definitions of "owner" which he felt didn't extend to items in the public domain.
<<
Who cares? If you say John Doe is your PI, then everyone using your OGC
must respect your PI. The ability to copyright or trademark John Doe is
IMMATERIAL to the OGL.
>>
Again, I was just clarifying somebody else's argument that "ownership" was a requirement.
<<
>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.
Nowhere in the license does it tell you to do so. So, why do it?
>>
To interpret the license we must have definitions for words. "Owner" can have a variety of connotations, but to interpret the license you have to pick one. Another list member thought that ownership is best defined according to trademark & copyright law since there's absolutely no other definition of "owner" established in the OGL and since you cannot own a specific word like you can a car or a bench.
I think my only point of note here regarding this matter was that it is not wholly clear cut what the license is saying and doing.
<<
>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.
Exactly. Funny isn't that?
>>
<<See my first exercise. Contracts allow you circumvent normal civil code>
laws. Copyright and trademark have extensive civil components.
>
That is utterly irrelevant. It's not a question of what contracts CAN do it is a question of what this one DOES do, and how it handles ownership requirements. It specifies you must be an "owner" of certain categories of information to exercise certain rights, but it fails to define "owner".
Therefore, before we can answer whether this contract DOES circumvent normal civil code, we must first ascertain what "owner" means in this context. If it is a definition established by civil code, then PI is limited to logos, product names, etc. which can be "owned" under IP law. If it a definition that you pull out of a hat, then it may not be so limited, but then you'd have to persuade others why this alternate definition should be binding.
I think, that unless I'm told by somebody "in the know" that decontextualized poses, themes, and concepts can be trademarked or copyrighted, that the intent of the license must be broader than typical IP definitions of "ownership". If those things are standard product identifiers, then perhaps, while poorly punctuated, the PI declarations protect a fairly narrow range of usages.
Lee
