>OK, on this illustrations based on OGC text are themselves OGC... > >Woodelf mentions the Freeport adventures, which are 100% OGC "except >for the artwork". BUT, if the illustrations depict scenese describee >in the open game content, they are clearly "derived" from that >content (just as a drawing of a Mind flayer based on my hypothetical >description would be derived from it), and, thus, cannot be claimed >as product identity, and are thus OGC. > >I'm certain I'm wrong in this logic, but I need a wiser man or woman >than myself to point out the obvious flaw in my cunning plan.
at least two flaws in that logic. first, the original creators of content retain "normal" rights to that content, even after it has been released to others via the WotC OGL. so they can derive artwork from it all they want. 2nd, i didn't have my brain screwed in tight when i first wrote that bit, and forgot that much of Freeport is OGC not because it's derivative, but because they chose to make it that way--so they aren't necessarily illustrating someone else's OGC, and thus see point 1. -- woodelf <*> [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://webpages.charter.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://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
