Brad Thompson wrote: >I think you're right about the trademark issue, but that doesn't let you >sidestep copyright. From what I've read, if you make something that looks a >lot like or is similar in enough ways to something else, and you had an >opportunity to use the other thing as a basis, then you may be asked to >prove (in court) that you have not derived from it. Nobody really knows how >similar is similar enough, or in how many ways - it all depends on the >situation. > Well, yeah. The general consensus is "no, you can't do that." But that wasn't what I suggested.
>In text, the name "Rocky" is not copyrightable by itself (trademark >notwithstanding), but I think a spunky boxer from back east named Rocky >would be derivative. Likewise, two feats named "Boot to the Head" would not >necessarily be derivative of each other, but if one appears in a WotC work >and you own that work, and you create a feat with the same name and game >mechanics, you might be asked to prove you were not derivative. YMMV. > That's not what this thread suggested, oddly enough. A feat in Tome & Blood--say, Persistent Magic--is desired to be used as a prerequisite for an OGL'd PrC. The *only* words that would be in the PrC work would be "Persistent Magic", under the Requirements/feats: section. It's not making a new feat. It's not releasing a very-similiar feat as OGL. It's simply listing the name of a non-OGL feat to designate that feat as a requirement for an OGL'd Prestige Class. Hmm.... DM _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
