Lee said: > Next, toss out the OGL. Let's write a contract from scratch to simplify things. So I agree to this >contract with you:
>Ryan can use Lee's work provided that Lee's work not be published, in whole, or in part, in any >volume containing the word "Thor". If it is published with the word "Thor" in the volume, the >agreement is terminated and Ryan is in violation of copyright law. Otherwise, Ryan can distribute >Lee's work free of charge per the terms of this agreement. First, you can't toss out the OGL. The whole thread is an argument about the OGL. Second, your simplification isn't at all what the OGL says or implies. There is a difference, as Ryan has so aptly pointed out, between PI that is enforceable and PI that is valueless. Simply because I list "Sir Lancelot du Lac" in my PI does not mean that someone else can't use it. He is a literary figure that is open for use around the world. His name has been published again and again in diverse languages. Just because I PI it, doesn't mean that you can't use it. My claim would have no validity it court. "Judge, he used Sir Lancelot du Lac in one of his books. I clearly have that PIed. Please tell him to destroy his publications." "Son," says the judge, "prove to me you came up with that name all on your own. Better yet, tell me Lee didn't dig it out of Le Morte d'Artur. Case dismissed." It is only common sense that PI would apply to an "enhancement over the prior art." When you say that one "can't own a theme like good vs. evil," I would have to agree. But let's never rule out the possibility that someone might come along and add something to the theme, changing or "enhancing" it (I would say in this case, enhancement doesn't necessarily mean "to improve"). Same thing with a pose. Sure, you can PI "standing with your arms at your sides," but you aren't going to have any force in court. Your PI has no value. But who's to say that all poses have been created or conceived? Is everything an archetype and we're all simply adding our own spin? You are assuming that there isn't someone out there creative enough to invent something that would fit into one of these two concepts. They are there just in case something like that happens. Just because you can't conceive of it doesn't mean that there will never be a time when someone does. And when it happens, the protection will be there in the OGL for them. For instance, in one of the Dark Elf novels written by R.A. Salvatore (I do not remember which one) there is a time when the main character is fighting his arch nemesis. Salvatore describes the dark elf in a pose with his swords that I had never heard of or tried to picture before. Something about spinning like a screw. Now maybe I am not seeing it my head right. Maybe I am a shut-in and don't know anything about anything, but, it is possible that this is a "new" pose. So, if the book were OGC, except for the pose and the language describing the pose, I should think that Salvatore could make the case that people were using his PI if he saw it appear in another work. What it all comes down to, in my opinion, is that the OGL is allowing for the possibility that there is going to come a time when someone is going to be clever enough to create something completely original, and the OGL (as well as those who drafted it) want to give that creative someone the chance to protect their creation. Remember, it is the spirit in which the OGL is used, not necessarily the language used to create the liscense. I publishers and authors aren't out there deliberately trying to screw each other, the OGL does (and has) worked. Tim Kidwell _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
