> You just raised a very valuable point. I *THINK*
> the OGL should only prohibit
> non-expressly-permitted TMs in advertising and open
> gaming material... closed
> gaming material is just like any other work, y'know.
>
You got to love Yahoo…I get all these responses to the
response of my question , but as of yet, the actual
response hasn’t hit my account
Actually I agree, this is all semantics, thus I asked
what the intent was, for now I’ll assume the lettering
of the law will match the intent.
I actually see 2 different problems.
1) a game mentions, inadvertantly, the XYZ. XYZ
Corp which makes a non-gaming product claims it
violates the copyright. They admit it falls under
fair usage, but claims the liscense forbids it’s use
and holds the publisher to a higher standard. They
want “ a really bad thing” done to the publisher.
2) Since trademarks are a bit different than
copyrights and (as far as I know) have a broader
interpitation. So who decides when a trademark was
violated? Dragons & Dungeons isn’t trademark (OK I
didn’t check—it might be) but it’s so close to
Dungeons & Dragons that it is obviously a violation
(IMHO) That’s why I like the advertising/packaging
limitation, It’s easier to avoid using it in most
cases and easier to show the violation (obviously
someone was trying to capitilize on WOTCs product if
Dragons & Dungeons appears over the title of their
book, as opposed to inside a 400 word paragraph.)
> So, Vampire contains references to Coca-cola? Check
> again--I doubt it.
>
And as far as Vampire, the Players handbook actually
refers to Dungeons & Dragons (It’s in character of a
clan member, and slightly derogatory) Of course WW
didn’t voluntarily sign any agreement to not include
trademarks and so there’s a world of difference
between the situations.
On an aside re: IP --
Actually I work in the computer gaming industry and
live near Hoolywood (as if proximity gives validity)
and you should see the double standard for us and
movies. We have to comb every scene for IP issues and
had to take the Dept. of Justice logo out of a scene
(Thats what the lawyer's said...I just follow
orders)for IP reasons. A book had to be blurred cause
it looked too much like a Webster's dictionary. To me
it seems overkill but then again no one want's to be a
test case, so better safe than sorry.
Dan Carrreker
=====
http://www2.50megs.com/danccomp/tsnoishome.htm
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
