----- Original Message ----- From: "Ryan S. Dancey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If I gave you the d20 stats for Chewbacca from the Star Wars RPG, but > didn't give you a physical description other than something like "has > long pointy teeth", and you gave me back a picture of a wookie, I'd say > your picture was an infringement on Lucas' copyright. And I suspect the > courts would agree with me (especially if you called it a "wookie".) On the other hand, if "Wookie" was given a D20-srd like reference, you'd had more trouble claiming a furry humanoid named a wookie was infringing. It won't be SRD-ized, but let's keep the examples similar. > If I give you the d20 stats for a mind-flayer, but don't give you a > physical description other than "has four tentacles around its mouth", > and you give me back a picture of a mind-flayer, I'd say your picture > was an infringement on WotC's copyright. And, again, I suspect the > courts would agree with me (especially if you called it an "illithid".) But other data, like the advancment method, does point at humanoid as a valid inference from the monster entry. Illithid is definitely infringing, a humanoid octopus-critter? Not likely, not with that entry. > You're in an especially bad situation with regard to your image of > Mind-Flayers, because d20 has a >defined term< meaning "generally > human-like in appearance" (Humanoid) and a >defined term< meaning alien > or monsterous in appearance (Abberation). As the game is strongly > typed, you'd have a tough time making the argument that an Aberration > should look like a Humanoid (or vice versa) >without< drawing on a 3rd > party reference. You would? What about lycanthropers? (type shapechanger) What about D&D's "angels" by another name? (type outsider) What about golems? (type construct) Without even trying, I've just come up with three humanoid-form critters in D&D that aren't type humanoid. It's not strongly typed, humanoid and animal types get overridden by the very mechanics of the game at several turns. >You'd be subjected to the "reasonable person" test: > Would a "reasonable person" spontaneously generate an image of an > aberration with tentacles around its mouth that looked like an > octopus-headed human, or would a "reasonable person" spontaneously > generate some other image? A "reasonable person" would assume that a creature that advances by character type is similar to a humanoid, yes, since there's no exceptions. Why'd you folks SRD this if you weren't planning on reasonable use? > Oh, and we're all friends here. Please call me Ryan. Sure. _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
