> > i could find numerous other examples. i'd say that this is "the same >> material". the D20SRD as a whole may be best thought of as >> derivative of the 3E books, but huge chunks of the text are the same >> exact material, with little more than "you" replaced with "the >> character"--hardly a significant change. but i'll accept that we >> just have different ideas of what consitutes "the same" vs. >> "derivative" (and, probably, of the line between "derivative" and >> "fair use", too), chalk it up to a semantic point, and move on. > >Fair enough. But actually, my idea on the line between "derivative" and >"fair use" is that I'm too ignorant to have a valid opinion, and have no >clue whatsoever that your opinion is wrong (or right, for that matter). That >issue is exactly the sort of briar patch where I want Brer Lawyer on my >side. I have no clue how a court would rule on a given case. > >In fact, being rather literal minded, I see it that fair use IS derivative, >just a derivative that's allowed for the purposes of discussing and >contemplating and satirizing the ideas. It's important that commentators be >able to highlight the key points of good works and poke holes in the key >points of bad works, so that free speech can be more than just free, but a >means to improve the general body of knowledge. In this way, fair use >promotes the same core values as open development. >
actually, if you want to really puzzle over all of this, re-read the copyright law on what consitutes "derivative work". from US Code Title 17, Section 101: >A ''derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more preexisting >works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, >fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art >reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a >work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of >editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other >modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of >authorship, is a ''derivative work''. now, on the one hand, it broadly says a work "based upon" one or more preexisting works, and refers to "elaborations" and "adapted" work. but, on the other hand, all of the examples given can be described roughly as "same content, different presentation". it would be clearer if a sequel to a novel was explicitly defined as a derivative work [and if so, whether it matters how much similarity there was to the original: would a short story that opens with a bricked up alcove being opened, and a nearly-dead man being found, along with a cask of almontiado (sp?), but then says nothing more in reference to Poe's story be derivative, or just the fair reuse of a non-copyrightable plot device?]--or not. an adventure designed for use with D&D is, IMHO, "different content, same presentation" (things like stat blocks), so, while possibly an IP violation, i really don't see how derivative work comes into the whole D20 debate. [as soon as i have a chance, i intend to go to the law library and read everything i can manage on derivative work in the case law (via Lexus? is that what it's called?). so it is conceivable that the examples in the original legislation have been deemed insufficient, or even misleading, in which case this all becomes a moot point.] it seems to me, speaking as a layperson, that the purpose of the derivative work clauses is not to prevent the sort of "compatible" work that interoperable game systems would represent, but rather to prevent circumventing copyright by simply changing the medium or organization. clearly, a textbook that reverses the contents of chapters 1-5 was intended to be considered a violation of the copyright on the original. i think that the derivative work clause was meant to explicitly address this, so that it was not ambiguous whether such changes constituted were sufficient to be considered a new work. now, that's based purely on the legislation (as updated as of january of this year). caselaw (which i have yet to pursue), may completely change the intent and/or interpretation of those elements of copyright. -- woodelf <*> [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.home.net/woodelph/ If any religion is right, maybe they all have to be right. Maybe God doesn't care how you say your prayers, just as long as you say them. --Sinclair _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
