I am just following the Copyright Act/Berne Convention Copyright Act of 1976 (17 USCS Sects. 100-105)
Sect. 103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works (a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 [17 USCS Sect. 102] includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully. (b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material. You have to prove that it is derivative first. Technically ANY game made using the SRD is derivative mechanics-wise which, using your legal reference would make everything moot. Worse, you could even go further and find out who designed the first game where conflict was resolved with the rolling of dice. Who used "Old White Bearded Wizard" first? Or better yet, "Elf". There are WAY to many people out there that have derived in some way shape or form their "content". The argument gets silly. Besides, people should work on creating new interesting stuff, not another version of an Elf or Rattling :) Richard Stewart -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Brad Thompson Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 12:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Ogf-l] Re: Open Creature Project > Richard Stewart > > Art work is dealt with like any other art. Artwork released as > OGC is OGC. > Artwork NOT released OGC is not OGC. Regardless of whether it is > derivative or not, does not matter. > > It is very simple. Artwork is dealt with like any other copyrighted material. You do not have the right to create derivative works of copyrighted material, even if such a derivative is a "translation" from text to a pictorial representation (Ferdinand Pickett v. Prince, March 2000, 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 3768). All OGC is copyrighted material, and any works derivative of OGC must either be released under the OGL or are a violation of the license. You are correct that artwork which is derivative is not automatically OGC - it is the joint property of the OGC copyright holder and the artist, which means neither can use the material unless it is released under the OGL. It is FAR from simple. -Brad For an abstract of the case: http://www.kentlaw.edu/student_orgs/jip/copy/ferdinand.htm _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
