--- Grok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The attack is meritted in this circumstance, as the
> issue was why would you
> PI things.. Since he has not produced anything for
> the game which could be
> taken, used without permission, and turned into a
> profit for himself, the
> point stands..
So nobody is entitled to an opinion unless they've
released a d20 product? I've seen this unpublished
vs. published pecking order get established on any
number of e-lists for writers; I'm sorry to see it
being promoted here.
> If he wants to release an entire
> world with everything open
> content, then there better never come a day that the
> complains that someone
> took his idea and is making more money on it than he
> is.. It is for this
> sort of protection that one PI's material. If I want
> to use a monster from
> CC, then either I make a new name for it, or I ask
> permission to use the
> name.. can't get much simpler than that. Since this
> is a fantasy game, lets
> look at a fantasy setting.. Say, for the sake of
> arguement, that Clark
> decided to make all his stuff Open. He makes a
> pretty penny on his Critter
> book. All is good. I come along and make an
> adventure that includes some of
> his monsters. For whatever reason, this adventure is
> hugely successful,
> outselling everything on the market, backordered for
> weeks, and becomes the
> benchmark that all adventures are compared against..
> I rake in the phat
> coinage. Poor Clark, who developed the monsters I
> used in the adventure, is
> bent over and abused.. Is this what you want to see?
> He has no legal ground
> to stand on, and can only watch as I use his ideas
> to toss together stuff.
> Now, admittedly I could do the same adventure but
> name the critter
> differently, but maybe it was the name that made the
> game.. who knows.
I think that's pretty doubtful. If the adventure or
the campaign module sucks, no amount of cool-sounding
monsters will save it, IMO. However, assuming for the
sake of argument that the scenario you described does
occur, then Clark still gets credit for his creatures,
and that kind of name recognition is valuable.
Furthemore, there's nothing stopping Clark from
capitalizing on _your_ success with the same creatures
and turning around and making something even more
popular. He can still use his creatures in whatever
he writes, and, as Chris Pramas pointed out in his
post, people may become more interested in Clark's
original product as a result of encountering his
creatures in another author's material. If something
happened to prevent Clark from ever using his
creatures again, then that would indeed be a situation
of "poor Clark." When authors give permission for
people to write in their settings but don't require
reciprocal permission to build on whatever those
people create, then you get situations where an author
is locked out of part or even all of his own creation.
THAT is a problem.
> Regardless of what Karl may have done outside of the
> community, it has
> nothing to do with the bearing of the d20
> community.. I am sure Mother
> Theresa was a great person, but that doesn't mean
> she could write a d20
> adventure ;)
So only those who have a product on the shelves can
comment, and all others should stick a sock in it?
Neal
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
