[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > << Your argument about dragons is trash. >> > > Is not. > << Is too :) >> > Is not. :)
Is too :) > 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. It sure seems to be a difference of opinion. I think we disagree on (a) where to draw the line for character copyright vs the idea behind the character, (b) definition of derivative, (c) definition of "common" versus "unique", as in dragons are common but WoTC hobgoblins are not. And maybe Mind Flayers aren't "common" either once you get past squid-headed humanoid. And no one has read *all* the relevant material. Courts decide things based on what is presented. I'm aware of things that support my point of view. I'm having trouble understanding your position, let alone finding evidence to support it. > 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). This does pose a problem (original vs common vs derivative). It doesn't seem to be necessary to show that a work is derivative of specific public domain material. It can just be "common", like dragons are common. Synthesis is at the root of most creative endeavors so I would argue that putting common elements together in a unique way makes it "uncommon" and protected. It wouldn't matter that certain elements are public domain if the combination is original. If too many of the elements match between one combination and another, there might be a case for copyright infringement. It is hard to think of something that has never been thought of before (pun intended). I'll have to see "A Beautiful Mind" to find out what Hollywood thinks of Nash's idea. > But I > will say that I disagree with your interpretation of "new > version" and "derivative." ;) Why? > << The OGL doesn't define what is derivative. Copyright law does. >> > Does it? Or do the courts? Almost as good as pointing out the difference between published works and personal use. > << 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. I'm not saying this. I'm just pointing out that it was silly of you to try and single out the OGL as being problematic when (as you agree) the issue of illegal derivation is not unique to the OGL. Weldon Dodd [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
