Here's Martin's second message (he's replying to me). The idea of trying to look at the large OGL product as a compilation of individual OGC is an interesting approach. I'm not certain it works completely because of the lack of prior copyright on the material, but it's not a bad analogy to work off of. And the issue of "partial" copyrights has been better explained/argued by Ryan than myself.
alec ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 04:35:31 +0800 From: Martin L. Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Alec A. Burkhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [Ogf-l] OGC designation for Tome of Horrors > Not sure I'm following you completely. The netbook approach would require > the listing of every single monster used as well. Yes. What I'm saying is, if I would have to list every monster that I used, then Clark could just as easily (if you want to call it easy) list every monster directly in his work to begin with, rather than list a template that would cause folks to argue over whether they could expand the template or just copy it verbatim without expansion. > In fact the former > argument was that you had to include the entire list even if you used just > one item. That's the area that I think bears revisiting. I know you have argued before that courts haven't recognized sort of "partial" copyright infringements, and that if I use part of a work, I have used it all. (And as always, you're the guy with a law degree who isn't a lawyer, while I'm just a yutz with an opinion, so I'll take your word for it.) A work is a work, basically (though I forget how that applies in the case of compilations of separately copyrighted works). But if we're going to propose a common industry practice in hopes that a court might use it as a guideline, then I think we need to contemplate whether separate parts of a work can have separate copyrights, or maybe a sort of "divisible" copyright. In that case, if Clark listed his copyright for the book as a whole and then listed the individual credits for each item, I could reuse some of his monsters, list Clark's book copyright, and list the credits for each item I reused, without having to list the ones I didn't reuse. Looking at s.6: **************************************************************** 6.Notice of License Copyright: You must update the COPYRIGHT NOTICE portion of this License to include the exact text of the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any Open Game Content You are copying, modifying or distributing, and You must add the title, the copyright date, and the copyright holder's name to the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any original Open Game Content you Distribute. **************************************************************** If a work were a compilation of separate Open Game Content works, each with its own copy of the OGL and its own s.15, then listing only the ones reused would certainly comply with s.6. What I think we should consider, now, is whether the original publisher of a work may voluntarily declare it as something like a compilation -- say, a compendium, if that doesn't already have some copyright meaning. A compendium would have within it multiple Units of Open Game Content, as clearly indicated by the publisher (yes, I'm suggesting adding ANOTHER "clearly indicated" into the mix); and each Unit of Open Game Content could be reused as long as the copyright for the whole work AND the s.15 credits for the Unit were preserved. But you would not be required to reproduce the s.15 credits for Units you did not reuse. Now of course, someone who reuses existing work cannot declare that work as a Unit of Open Game Content. That reused work has to be reused as is. > If you look at Clark's example, it's not necessary to list > every monster used individually - he allows the combining of monster > names followed by authors followed by origination. This would actually > result in a much smaller s.15 than the if someone did what you are > suggesting under former netbook concept. But ONLY if the template approach meets the standards of s.6. If we're going to contemplate template expansion as meeting the definition of "exact text", then a divisible s.15 entry is also worth discussing. > btw - would you like me to forward your message & my reply to the list to > aid in the discussion Please feel free! I should have given permission for that before. Martin L. Shoemaker Martin L. Shoemaker Consulting http://www.MartinLShoemaker.com http://www.UMLBootCamp.com _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
