> I think you can understand how "anything you find" paints a bit too
> broad of a swath.
I understand it's frustrating. That doesn't mean I have a better solution.
> For example, many creatures in D&D have names and
> derivations from obscure literature or folk mythology, and therefore
> would be legal to use, yet would be time consuming to verify.
Yup. That's the issue. A person can do the research and provide provenance
that a given bit of the D&D books is public domain, but it will take time
and possibly money to do so. WotC's not gonna do it, because that work has
no benefit to the company. The OGF isn't gonna do it, because the OGF is
one computer and a sliver of my free time - and the OGF >shouldn't< do it,
because the OGF doesn't exist to promote d20, it exists to promote the
concept of Open Games. That leaves the onus right where it should be (in my
opinion), on the publishers.
> I would not expect it to be difficult for the OGF to obtain from the
> Trademark and Copyright offices a list of the registered (and refused)
> trademarks and copyrights for TSR and WOTC.
In the US, and in any signatory to the Berne Convention, any work, once
fixed in a tangible medium, is considered to be Copyright. Registration is
not required. Therefore, there are no all-inclusive lists of copyrights for
anything anymore, not just D&D game product. This is a problem with the
Berne Convention, not with Open Gaming.
Also in the US, any mark, used in commerce, can be considered a "trade mark"
if that mark is associated by consumers with a good or service. Use of that
symbol does not require registration. (Registered Trademarks use the "R"
symbol, declared but unregistered Trademarks use the "TM" symbol at the
owner's option). Thus, there is no all-inclusive list of trademarks either.
This is a problem with the US Trademark law, not Open Gaming.
> Since PI is such a key selling point for the OGF
Sorry - you lost me there.
The OGF could care less about PI. From the perspective of the OGF, the OGF
would be happy if PI just went away an stopped distracting people from the
purity of 100% Open Game Content.
:)
Remember: Product Identity is what pubishers say it is. I did not tell you
that you should consider all the content in published D&D books to be
Product Identity. I said you should consider it to be copyright and
trademarked unless your lawyer tells you otherwise. That's a key
difference. The Product Identity clause was drafted to allow mixed Open
Gaming/Closed Content works, and provide a mechanism for clearly deliniating
what category a given piece of content falls into. Outside of Open Game
Content, the copyright and trademark laws, not the OGL, provide the
structure for use.
At this time, beyond the titles of a few books and a registered trademark or
two, WotC has not claimed >ANY< Product Identity.
> Finally, is it correct to say that the OGF is interested *only* in
> promoting non-fan, non-hobby game developers?
I don't know why you'd think so.
The OGF has a clearly spelled out mandate.
www.opengamingfoundation.org/foundation.html sets forth it's goals and
objectives.
> What would your advice to them be, given that they most likely lack
> the ability or desire to seek out legal advice?
Use the contents of the SRD, which is 100% Open Game Content, and avoid the
rest of the D&D content.
The SRD is a living document. Over time, it will grow to encompass more
than just the core 3e rulebooks. Like all living things, that growth will
take time, consume resources, have ocassional setbacks, and will require
attention and love to flourish.
Mixing metaphors freely, Rome was not built in a day.
Ryan
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
