Sixten Otto wrote: > I think that Mr. Meerschaert's argument (and correct me if I'm wrong) > was that these names wouldn't be protected by normal copyright, and so > cannot be PI. However, reproducing spell or feat names verbatim > probably would be copyright violation. Furthermore, the OGL contains > specific terms which supercede "default" copyright and trademark, and > I see no restriction in the definitions that the PI terms must be in > any way unique or "special," just that you use them to refer to your > stuff.
You can't copyright a name. *copyright law* won't save you one bit on use of the word "Dungeons and Dragons" or even "Luke Skywalker." Trademarks are something else... but most publishers I know wouldn't really care about the "trademark" on one spell, especially if the spell still means the same spell (same rules mechanics, etc.) The OGL can only deal with what someone else allready has and doesn't have. If you don't have authority to do something without the OGL and the OGL doesn't give it to you, you can't. If you have authority to do something and the OGL doesn't specifically prohibit it, you can. Given all that, I *think* that this is what Ryan meant when he made that infamous remark: The name of a thing (spell/feat/skill/class) can be marked Product Identity. However, the fact that you can call it Product Identity doesn't mean anything unless there is a method outside of the OGL (i.e., the law) keeping you from using it anyway. Since copyright doesn't protect names, you need to claim each name as a trademark (and therefore expend the expense to defend it, or lose it.) If you *don't* claim your PI'd name as a trademark, anyone at all has Authority to Contribute it, regardless of your prior claim. (I *think* it might be that you only get copyright or trademark ownership of your derivitive name / work if they're a "significant change from prior work." But please, as always, don't take my word on it. I am not a lawyer. ) That said... I think that it's bad form to claim "all spell names" as Product Identity. Gross claims like that for PI only further muddy the waters of the supposed safe harbor that the OGL creates. The OGL isn't just about getting to use WotC's stuff--it's about share and share alike, and all publishers *should* do whatever they can to clearly mark what their fans can use from their work, not just mark what the OGL forces *them* to use. (more on this in a bit.) DM _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
