> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ryan S. Dancey > Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 10:20 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Ogf-l] Do divergent creature illustrations hurt or help > D&D? > > > But this is business, and when the question is > > "what is best for WotC" I can't imagine how forcing the > > creation of dozens of divergent descriptions for the same > > critter helps sell copies of the MM. > > "What is best for WotC" is to ignore the issue until such time as the > company believes it is in it's interest to take action to protect it's > assets. That day might never come. On the other hand, if, say, > MacFarlane Toys did a deal to make action figures from D&D illustrations > and insisted on using exclusive images, that day might come very > quickly. Since copyright, unlike trademark, does not have to be > defended, WotC can make whatever decisions it wishes about protecting > it's copyrights to illustrations at a time of it's choosing. > > I guarantee that there are some people inside WotC who look at > derivative artwork, look at the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent > on reconcepting the core D&D races, the immense number of hours spent by > very talented illustratators doing that work, and the long days of > debate and discussion that went into the overall brand framework within > which that work was done, and want to know why WotC doesn't act > immediately to enforce those rights, to stop those 3rd parties from > gaining, essentially at no cost, the direct benefit for all that work, > and frankly, I don't have much of an answer for them.
This seems entirely consistent with what you explained early on, Ryan. One of the major business justifications for Wizards to enter into the OGL was that certain sorts of supplements might very well have a positive impact on Wizards' sales, yet be a lousy investment of Wizards' capital. If a dollar invested in those supplements earned Wizards X in profit on the supplements themselves and Y in profit on increased core book sales, that same dollar invested in other work (I think Pokemon cards were the cash cow at the time) would earn much more than X+Y in profit. Yet if some other company that DIDN'T have Pokemon as a cash cow wanted to put forth the effort to earn X or something close to it, Wizards was happy to let them, and pocket the Y. So in this case, the hobgoblin book may be generating enough potential Y to keep Wizards happy, or the cost to litigate may be more than the potential settlement, Z. I haven't seen the particular book in question; but the guide books I have seen -- while decent -- would never be confused with Wizards' work, and don't seem a likely source of harm that I can foresee. Unless this guide is truly exceptional (what are the sales on one of these books, any guesses?), more people will use hobgoblins straight from the MM than from the guide. Plus Wizards may believe that their take on hobgoblins is far less original than some of their more unique creations, and thus more expensive to defend, for much less benefit. > Illustrations reside outside the scope of the SRD (and thus the OGL). > They are not game rules, or materials that use those rules. Ultimately, I think the real question lies here: why? And I think one possible answer lies above, when you reference Todd McFarland toys. Wizards is owned by a toy company, after all, and thus may be overly interested in protecting the visual rights for any toy usage. Martin L. Shoemaker Martin L. Shoemaker Consulting, Software Design and UML Training [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.MartinLShoemaker.com http://www.UMLBootCamp.com _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
