<<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) "Product Identity" means ... language, concepts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order for WotC to claim PI on the term "d20," it must fall into one of
the above areas. Let's play "process of elimination."
>>
Sure, I'll play. How about the phrase "d20" is a term with meaning and is therefore language and concept alike. Both are protectable categories of Product Identity.
People hate those categories. Nobody ever mentions them, but they are there.
<<The term "d20" is not owned by WotC>>
How do we define ownership for things like concepts? Poses? Patents aside I think it would be hard to claim that you cornered the market on a pose or a concept. Those are the types of things not traditionally protected in their fundamental state under copyright or trademark law.
<< it has demonstrably existed in common
gaming parlance for years
>>
Now that is the real question, and the one I actually hoped would be answered. I think I noted in a previous post that one of our past discussions involved defining ownership to see who has the right to declare PI.
I think there are two basic questions:
a) do you have the authority to declare PI
b) if you do, can somebody just "end run" your PI declaration by sourcing it from somewhere else
<<So it fails ALL of the tests for "can this be claimed as PI?"
>>
It didn't fail all those tests. "d20" represents both "concept" and "language". Re: ownership, the license sets up no paradigm for ownership of a "concept".
<<Furthermore, PI must specifically exclude Open Game Content (see the final
line... "and specifically excludes Open Game Content").>>
Right, but presumably that follows from a single work. It doesn't consider all the OGC ever created everywhere, or I couldn't PI a character with the same name that you OGC'd somewhere else, and vice versa. If I PI'd something (like a theme), then you couldn't OGC that theme elsewhere.
You are getting back into a situation where global awareness of all OGC and PI is required (see the discussion from a few weeks ago).
<< "d20" was entered
into Open Game Content as of version 3.0 of the OGL. Note that the generic
term "d20" as used to represent an icosahedral die, was added to the canon
of OGC in the 3.0 SRD, Basics section. From the 3.0 SRD, "Basics" Section:
>>
Right, and nobody contests that you can derive from 3.0 SRD and ignore 3.5 SRD PI restrictions. The question is whether you have to bow at the altar of the 3.5 PI restrictions if you use the 3.5 SRD.
<< "d20" falls under none of the
acceptable categories and as such cannot be PI'd.
>>
It is both language (verbatim _expression_) and a concept (which nearly every word or _expression_ that has any meaning must be).
<<Three: clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity -- WotC is not the owner of the term "d20" and therefore cannot designate it as Product Identity.
>>
This goes back to an earlier discussion. The OGL sets no terms or definitions for PI ownership. How does one _own_ a pose?
Reformation seems required. Either because normally unprotectable items are now protectable and can be owned where they weren't previously to be owned OR there's a list of things which nobody can claim ownership and any claims of PI protection are all but null and void in spite of being listed as protectable items.
Something has got to give.
<<3.) It must be "owned" by the one who designates it as PI... this "ownership" concept comes as either the copyright owner or in the concept of improving prior art.>>
The prior art requirement applies to OGC, not PI.
Lee
