It's pretty common practice to PI art in a publication but it occurred to me that this might not be enforceable in most cases given that a great deal of art is contracted from freelancers with non-exclusive rights.
For example, I produce a supplement and hire artists with a non-exclusive contract then include that art in my product and make a claim such as "all art is Product Identity". Publisher X then comes along, uses some of my open content text and then contacts the artists I used and pays them for non-exlcusive rights to the art that appeared in my product. Even though PubX includes my publication in their Section 15, and thus must abide by my PI designations, since I signed a non-exclusive contract with the artist I don't have the right to actually claim PI on the art and thus PubX can include the art I used in their material. At least my suspicion is that this is the way a court of law would see it if the case ever got to one. Steven Palmer Peterson www.Second-World-Simulations.com _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
