On Sat, 12 Jan 2002, Ryan S. Dancey wrote:
> > From: John Kim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Is there any precedent for this?? It seems to me that the
> > reverse is true. i.e. In the case of Warner Bros. Pictures v.
> > Columbia Broadcasting Sys., it was found that one could use the
> > character and even name it "Sam Spade" -- since the character was
> > not distinctive enough.
>
> Having read through thirty years of caselaw on the subject, my
> (non-legal professional) opinion is that if either the "Sam Spade"
> or "Sky Pirates" case was litigated today the IP owners would win
> both cases easily.
[...]
> The courts have increasingly seen fit to award IP owners near total
> control of their original creations and to exclude similar works and
> derivative works almost without exception.
>
> Congress needs to step in at some point and write law.
I mostly agree with this, but it doesn't answer my question.
In the case here, I am *licensed* to use the original creation of
the four-tentacled, brain-extracting, psionic, lawful evil creatures.
The only issue is what name I attach to it. Is there any case where
someone has been able to protect just a name (or similar detail)
through copyright law?
Also, while the IP precedents above are true for
novels/screenplays/etc., the precedents are quite different for
games. Galoob vs Nintendo and Sega vs. Accolade both upheld the
right of third parties to make compatible works to an original
game. On this point, Congress *has* stepped in and wrote law in
the form of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
- John
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
