> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>I understand what you are saying but...I am not talking about free access
to
those brands/settings (which they are not granting I think).
The d20 STL grants equal access to all d20 System products, through the d20
Brand (so you might say that D&D is co-branded as d20 System too). They
definitely expect the SRD to apply to more than just fantasy - that's why it
has blasters in it.
> I assume that people would get permission for any brand use they wanted to
do.
How? By writing a letter to Wizards? What are the terms of use? Will they
be individually tailored by request? Even if not, who will handle the
requests? Who will Q&A the materials to make sure they fit with the brand
goals of the line? Who will pay for the overhead this entails?
In fact there is very little business reason to do this from Wizards
perspective. The best it could do not fracture the market with dozens of
conflicting products that blur the brand to the point of uselessness. It
simply isn't practical.
> I am talking about creation of your own works, which are compatible with
the
system(s).
It has been postulated that you can create "your own works" that are
compatible with the various Wizards brands without infringing on their
copyright. There is not sufficient evidence one way or the other to assert
that this is possible, let alone easier than using a mechanism like the OGL.
> Nor do I think that much of what comprises the fantasy genre of D&
D(in the general sense) is a result of "considerable time, money, and
creative effort" on the part of companies. Sure putting together products
based on the genre requires those things, but the ideas are the products of
the users of the system. If a creation is the specific result of work
product and legally protectable then so be it, I fully support that.
I don't think I understand what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that
Forgotten Realms is NOT the result of "considerable time, money, and
creative effort"? Or the new 3rd edition rules? You must mean something
else. Wizards has no reason to give this material away - it is much more
valuable than the d20 System rules, precisely because it can be protected.
> I support the OGL and d20 ideas but I don't subscribe to the idea the we
should have no access to the underlying ideas of D&D (or other generic
genres) for use in products for profit without the use of the OGL.
It is unclear how much access one has to the underlying ideas of D&D and
other genres without using the OGL. THAT is why the OGL is valuable.
> Nor do I feel that formatting such ideas in a manner that would allow a
person to use
those ideas with that system or any other shouldn't be able to do so.
> I am
not familiar with net-books (minority I guess) so I don't know what they are
doing. The somewhat greedy was not in reference to money but the idea
ownership that seems to be implied in the thinking behind the OGL.
A 'netbook' is generally a piece of game material created by fans. Some are
truly original works, with the D&D or other logo slapped on them
(unacknowledged). Most are
as illegal as you can get in the world of copyright & trademark law.
Ownership is more than implied by the OGL, it is very overt. Wizards owns
D&D and the d20 System. Does that mean you can't come up with a system that
has races, classes, skills, feats, levels and uses 20-sided dice? Not at
all. But by the time one goes to all the trouble of making it 100%
compatible with D&D, they've probably let something slip into that work that
actually *IS* a copyright infraction. I'd rather take my chances with the
OGL.
> My argument doesn't rely on extrapolation but where does it say that the
"derivative" material is for home use only? In fact most products I can
think
of where that is the case, have specific clauses notices to that effect.
This
leads me to ask why can't you extrapolate in this specific case (if not in
the general sense)? I used this before and it was dismissed but I raise it
again. If I buy a paint by the numbers dog and painting guide and I paint
the dog, I could sell it unless the product said specifically that I
couldn't. Or substitute miniatures. Or a module which might have
substantially more creative effort in it (Again assume that I used noone
else's settings/brands).
Copyright law says only the copyright owner has the right to make derivative
works. Fair Use is an exception to copyright law that says (among other
things) that you can do things that might normally be infringement but are
required to use the products as it was intended to be used. In this case
we're talking about derivative works. Is an adventure derivative? Most of
the ones I've made are, because I use creative material from the Greyhawk
and Forgotten Realms for my home-grown campaigns. Fair Use says that's ok,
so long as I don't distribute it.
> I used this before and it was dismissed but I raise it
again. If I buy a paint by the numbers dog and painting guide and I paint
the dog, I could sell it unless the product said specifically that I
couldn't. Or substitute miniatures.
I didn't respond before because it is very different to buy, paint & sell a
copyrighted work than to make copies of that work and sell them. You bought
the right to use the paint-by-number when you paid the copyright owner for a
copy of the work. Same with the miniature. In essence the exchange of
currency constitutes a license to 'use' the copyrighted work.
What you do to that work is your business, and if you paint them and sell
them you're doing fine, because then you're transferring your license from
the copyright holder to a new party. It's fine because transfer is one of
the right you DO get under copyright law. You can even make copies of the
dog and make different paint charts so you can paint him in different
colors, so long as you keep them for yourself. That's covered under Fair
Use. The paint chart alone is yours, even though it is compatible with the
dog, because it has nothing of the dog in it. By itself, the paint chart
could apply to anything. If instead of numbers you used descriptive wording
("eyes, tip of nose, spot on lower left leg") then you'll be approaching a
gray area, because the paint scheme only makes sense in the context of the
dog - in essence there is material derivative of the dog in your paint
scheme.
As soon as you start distributing those copies you are in deep trouble
though, because you aren't the copyright owner on the work (more precisely,
you are the owner of the painted part, but not the dog part), and only the
owner of the copyright has the right to distribute those works.
-Brad
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
