>From: "woodelf (lists)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> what about a work that you wanted to claim ownership over stuff that >> PI allows, but traditional IP law doesn't? couldn't you >> theoretically release a game under the WOGL, with no designated OGC, >> but some designated PI? it's doubtful whether doing so would >> actually give you control over any stuff that fell outside of >> trademark/copyright/patent, but within PI, but mightn't it be worth a >> shot? > >What "stuff" cannot be covered under the recent IP, copyright, and trademark >laws?
generally speaking, ideas can't be copyrighted, and can only be patented if they are new and represent an object or process. it's not absolutely clear where the line is drawn, but i'm doubtful that you could claim copyright on "stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, incidents, concepts, themes" (exerpted from the WOGL), as distinct from their particular expression in your work. now, Hollywood has shown that there are cases where you can sue over a particular combination of the above that was very similar to another, but i think those were contract issues, not IP issues--and the number of disaster-, action-, and love-story-movies with essentially the same plot, themes, and concepts pretty adequately demonstrates that nobody can claim to own those. >Although I must admit, the terms of the OGL also provide protection over PI >(which also includes the presentation of gaming contents that are off-limit >to other authors) as well as OGC. and it may be (as some claim), that all PI is intended to do is keep stuff that's already protected protected even when it's within OGC. -- 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
