In a message dated 7/23/03 8:51:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


<<The fact that the four
words used together don't exist anywhere outside a WotC copyrighted work
only goes to show that it's a stretch to think that the use in your one
paragraph story is not derivitive of WotC's copyrighted work. >>


If I said, "New Jersey is the gray waste of Hades", it would not, to my knowledge, under Title 17, ever be understood of as constituting a derivative work.



<<
Mon, 4 Mar 2002 - RE: [Ogf-d20-l] Converting from OGC to non-SRD

systems..
Sun, 4 Nov 2001 - RE: [Ogf-l] multiple licenses
>>


I'll review them, thanks.

<<I never said that WotC could claim a copyright on 4 words, but they
could claim a copyright on their _expression_ of the "Gray Wastes of
Hades".
>>


How?  Have you any case law which supports a notion that 4 words in sequence are copyrightable?  A trademark?  That might work as a trademark.  But I seriously doubt that 4 words in sequence, if used in another work, could be grounds for a successful claim of copyright infringement.

Re: intent of use, I have already said that a court _might_ grant some limited copyright protection to a name paired with licensed text.  I have never even heard of any such thing outside of the OGL where 100% of the text was licensed, but not the name of the character, and the character's name was not trademarked.  That's pretty ground breaking.

But I do know that potentially uncopyrightable things when used in unique combinations can be granted copyright status, so maybe the name / text combination would retain sufficient copyright to grant separate ownership of the name even when the text was licensed and such ownership would allow for a PI declaration.

The problem is: OGC is not PI and PI is not OGC.  The ownership of the copyright is to the combination of PI + OGC.  There is no ownership of the PI by itself.  And you have to own the PI to declare it as PI.  You don't.  You own the PI + OGC in combination which together form a copyrightable work.  The PI (if it's a name) is, in itself, not something that can be owned separate from it's context unless it is trademarked.


Lee

Reply via email to