In a message dated 1/21/02 11:18:58 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Your argument about dragons is trash. >> > Is not. << Is too :) >> Is not. :) > You tell me. What do they say? << I did, didn't I? I brought up what I thought was relevant to the discussion. >> But there is more that is relevant to the discussion. You're doing a good job digging up text from the LOC/Copyright site. Please continue. I paid good money to my attoeney for a healthy explanation of the facts and case law that may be applicable. Much of it is muddy, to be sure. But all the basics are on the site. << If you think your reading of material at the copyright office leads you to a different conclusion, I'd like to see it. >> It's not a matter of a "different reading of material at the copyright office," it's a matter of reading all of the relevant material at the copyright office, not just the two or three snippets that seem, on the surface, to support your theory. << I'm hoping the debate will help me clarify my understanding. >> [in best Yoda voice] "Clarification and understanding. Good things they are. Seeks them out a good publisher does." > An original illustration is not a "new version" of a work. << Granted. >> So end of story. << But we are talking about illustrations *based* on another work. Not wholly original illustrations. >> By your definition, there IS no such thing as a "wholly original" illustration, because EVERYTHING in the known universe is either public domain or owned by someone (or some entity). So this whole discussion is pointless and asenine and a waste of time. << 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. >> What I think the Slayer's Guide illustration clearly is or isn't doesn't amount to a hill of horse snot so I won't bother posting what I think. But I will say that I disagree with your interpretation of "new version" and "derivative." ;) > An original work is not a "changed" work. << See above. >> So we agree. Cool. << 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. >> Relevance? << The OGL doesn't define what is derivative. Copyright law does. >> Does it? Or do the courts? << Does it have repercusions for the OGL? Of course. But again these issues aren't exclusive to the OGL. >> Of course not. << The same issues exist for the Action! System license or any other license that grants consent to make derivative works. >> They do? If you think that we're going to try to claim ownership over every pice of art that vaguely resembles something we own, you're nuts, and we'd be nuts for doing so. Trademark issues aside, this whole argument thing is just silly, IMO. 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
