[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > << Your argument about dragons is trash. >> > Is not.
Is too :) > << And what do they say? >> > > You tell me. What do they say? I did, didn't I? I brought up what I thought was relevant to the discussion. If you think your reading of material at the copyright office leads you to a different conclusion, I'd like to see it. I'm hoping the debate will help me clarify my understanding. > An original illustration is not a "new version" of a work. Granted. But we are talking about illustrations *based* on another work. Not wholly original illustrations. Your original post responded to the issue of the hobgoblin as depicted in the MM and apparently copied in the Slayer's Guide. I think that the Slayer's Guide illustration is clearly a "new version" of an existing work. Therefore, derivative. > An original work is not a "changed" work. See above. > << This is not an OGL issue. This is a copyright issue. >> > > Oh, it is? Look, my point wasn't to say the OGL isn't involved. Rather,my point is that this issue exists outside of the OGL and the OGL is only tangentially related. The OGL doesn't define what is derivative. Copyright law does. Does it have repercusions for the OGL? Of course. But again these issues aren't exclusive to the OGL. The same issues exist for the Action! System license or any other license that grants consent to make derivative works. Weldon Dodd [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
