From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > First off, the definition of Product Identity clearly implies that trademarks > and registered trademarks are not automatically considered Product Identity > by virtue of the fact that they must be identified as Product Identity. So? Trademark law will always take precedence, not the OGL. "Registered Trademark" is not a term defined by the OGL. It's a term defined by the trademark laws. > Questions raised: > 1) Does defining Trademark in this way (Section 1.(f).) "replace" the normal > definition of trademarks as used by say the US.Gov.? Only to the extent that it helps define what Product Identity is. A license cannot replace a legal definition of a term like "copyright", "patent" or "trademark". > Meaning that throughout the > OGL are we to assume the use of the word Trademark means this specific > definition or may we assume that the "usual" meaning is in effect too? The definition is specific as to the use of product identity, and in general for all other purposes. > 2) If only defined exactly as worded, how is it that these Trademarks are > being "contributed" to the OGL? If the trademark is identified as Open Game Content, you get a worldwide, royalty free license to Use that mark. If it isn't, you don't. > Shouldn't the definition include the "standard" definition of trademarks '"Trademark" means the logos, names, mark, sign, motto, designs that are used by a Contributor to identify itself or its products' is generally considered the standard definition. The second clause is additive, not subtractive. > My theory->Trademarks are never "contributed" to the OGL. If I have a trademark for "MegaDamage", and I release a work and indicate that "MegaDamage" is Open Game Content, I've just licensed everyone in the world to use that trademark within the framework of the OGL. > I still see a problem in that no > version of the license states what clearly identified means regarding PI (as > mentioned above); The method of identification is up to the publisher. It will have to pass the reasonable person test if ever litigated. It would be foolish to try and specify a method of presenting either Open Game Content or Product Identity, because we cannot envision all the ways the OGL might be used, and would be certain to accidentally dissallow otherwise completely valid systems of identification. > What constitutes clearly identified to those who > do not read the webpage or documents where those declarations are made? If a reasonable person could not determine which parts of a covered work are identified as Product Identity or Open Game Content, then the publisher has failed to comply with the license. Ryan _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
