In a message dated 1/21/02 10:37:30 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Your argument about dragons is trash. >> Is not. << And what do they say? >> You tell me. What do they say? A lot of people would seem to prefer to get all of their answers from Ryan, and that's their choice. But Ryan himself has flatly stated that they are his opinions (educated though they may be) and nothing more. Some of the things that he asserts have no basis in case law. A ny one person's opinion may have as much weight as anyone else's. I simply advide seeking legal counsel for such important matters as might put one's company or venture at risk of inheriting some mighty heft liability...or to avoid needless "cautions" that serve only to bolster an argument (sorry, "opinion") that itself may have little merit. I'm entitled to my say as much as anyone else here who knows far less about copyrights and trademarks and intellectual property. So don't try to "shush" me by demanding I provide information that is all ready very available to anyone willing to get off their rear and find it for themselves. If anyone is half as serious about being a publisher as they are about debating whether a stupid imaginary monster can be descrivbed with four tentacles growing out of its head or its butt or whatever SHOULD all ready have researched this stuff on their own instead of making business decisions and staking their company's financial solvency on the opinions of nameless people on this list who may or may not have ever published something, received a law degree or even risked one red cent on any business venture. << I'm aware of this statement by the Copyright Office... Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create a new version of that work. >> An original illustration is not a "new version" of a work. << Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner's consent. >> An original work is not a "changed" work. << What else do they say about your right to create a new illustration based on existing (copyrighted) text or illustrations? >> You're doing a good ob of proving my argument for me. Please feel free to continue. << (I'll point out that the OGL is a method to grant consent to create derivative works.) >> Agreed... with a few notable exceptions. << This is not an OGL issue. This is a copyright issue. >> Oh, it is? Oh, my. I must have gotten off this train at the wrong stop. I guess this whole thread is off-topic then. Sorry. the OGL is all ABOUT copyright and intellectual property. it defines how those things are handled within the scope of the OGL. And Ryan's assertions about art is related to the OGL *and* copyrights, both. Mark Arsenault President, Gold Rush Games | http://www.goldrushgames.com Executive Director, Game Publishers Association | http://www.thegpa.org ------------------------------------------------------- Action! System Beta rules! - http://www.action-system.com _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
