|
|
Post by cooper on Jun 20, 2014 8:47:19 GMT -6
No offense, but "Goblins" "lightning bolts" are in the SRD, does that mean WotC can win a lawsuit against Tolkien and the Zeus?
D&D itself is a derivative work. WotC owns nothing except the name "dungeons and dragons" and Gary gygax's text, so unless this guy is plagiarizing he's ok (and even then of course the 100,000,000 dollar D&D brand doesn't care.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 20, 2014 19:47:02 GMT -6
NOTE: This discussion on OGL and copyright has been pulled out of another topic here
No offense, but "Goblins" "lightning bolts" are in the SRD, does that mean WotC can win a lawsuit against Tolkien and the Zeus? Of course not. Tolkien and "Zeus" are not published under the OGL, and nor are they D&D emulations. The SRD contains material that OGL-compliant SRD-based works CAN legally copy. Not what everyone else on Earth CANNOT copy. Common language and myth (such as goblins and lightning) are not anybody's intellectual property; they are public domain. D&D's game-specific representation of these things is WotC's intellectual property, however. And happily, the OGL allows anyone who is willing to comply with the OGL to copy/reuse that property. D&D itself is a derivative work. WotC owns nothing except the name "dungeons and dragons" and Gary gygax's text, so unless this guy is plagiarizing he's ok (and even then of course the 100,000,000 dollar D&D brand doesn't care. D&D is a derivative work by the common meaning of "derivative", as in it was "inspired" by lots of other material. That doesn't make it a "Derivative Work" by the copyright definition. cooper if you genuinely believe that OD&D is a Derivative Work by the copyright definition then it would be helpful to also tell us what prior, copyright publication OD&D is a Derivative Work of. WotC owns the entirety of the intellectual property known as Dungeons & Dragons. That includes the name, the text, the tables, the images, the trade dress, and every game-noun with it's associated game-meaning, etc. Happily once more, the OGL allows anyone who is willing to comply with the OGL to copy/reuse some (but not all) of that property. Ryan Dancey says that copying tables out of D&D (such as the class and attack matrices) is a breach of copyright. So, by the OGL then, copying the D&D tables number-for-number is no different to copying the text word-for-word. I agree that so long as the IP holder doesn't notice or doesn't care, a publisher can get away with anything. All I'm saying is that it's potentially not a great strategy to be "getting away with" anything, when you could do it all quite legally by changing a few numbers, and a few words, here and there.
|
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jun 20, 2014 20:01:38 GMT -6
Ryan Dancey is wrong because an attack matrix is a game rule and you cannot copyright game rules.
Here is the quote from the relevant government website--the U.S. Copyright Office:
Gygax and Arneson's LBB's are copywritten as literature, not games; as we all know you cannot take someone else's "novel" and call it your own. As long as Full Metal Plate Mail uses his own words he is under no breach of copyright. The only thing WotC owns is their words and (and gygax's words in literary form), the art (copyright under "visual art") as well as the most valuable asset, the business license for the game "Dungeons and Dragons".
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 20, 2014 20:08:24 GMT -6
Those tables are works of creative authorship, just like any text. If there were a "forumla" or "rule" that backed those tables, that would not be copyright. But the tables in question are an expression of creative authorship, not results mechanically pumped out by some mathematical "rule". Ryan Dancey is wrong because an attack matrix is a game rule and you cannot copyright game rules. Ryan Dancey also says that: So the courts must be wrong too. |
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jun 20, 2014 20:10:23 GMT -6
Until Ryan Dancy cites an actual court case his words mean nothing. WotC cannot successfully defend a claim of ownership of rolling a d20 to resolve fantasy combat. Nor claim ownership of a matrix showing all the possible permutations which is all the "attack matrix" is any more than they can claim ownership of "hearing something behind a door on a roll of 1 on a d6".
Dave Arneson developed the Armor Class system by adapting it from a different war game. If anything that old war game owns the rights to "armor class".
What Ryan Dancy is talking about doing is analogous to "Patent Trolling" and it seems to work (so far) for billion dollar tech business companies like Google and Samsung, but nobody is going to take it seriously for table top games. "We own rolling a d20 for combat" is laughable. Even if they did at one point have justifiable claim of ownership, the mere existance of dozens and dozens of "clone" games means they have not maintained control nor defended the art. Which means a judge could say it is all in the public domain (rules that is, not actual literary works). The mere creation of Full Metal Plate Mail itself weakens Ryan Dancy's claim of any ownership of the game rules. If you do not defend your rights of IP, they are lost. Heck, Apple can't even stop Samsung from making clones of the iPhone!
The only court case I'm aware of that WotC launched was against 2 guys in eastern europe printing PDF's of 1e PHBs and DMGs and selling them. Most importantly, WotC is a big company and can defend their own IP if they want to. The only answer OP needs is, "everyone does it and nobody at all has a problem with you printing and even selling your house rules fantasy game." FMPM would have been cutting edge in 2008, but now in 2014 the OSR is filled to the brim with clones. His biggest mistake is spending his creative energy repeated what's already been done a dozen times! This is where lots of kudos go to original projects like Carcosa.
if TSR/WotC could sue they would have gone after Tunnels and Trolls in 1975--the original retroclone. They failed miserably in the 1990's trying to shut down peoples websites. There will never be any more lawsuits for peoples house rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 20, 2014 23:02:49 GMT -6
Until Ryan Dancy cites an actual court case his words mean nothing. When the guy who conceived and delivered the OGL speaks about the OGL, it might pay to listen. |
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jun 20, 2014 23:07:33 GMT -6
The open gaming license was for commercial enterprises to receive an approval from WotC to be able to market their product as compatible with 3E. If one doesn't want an official seal of approval, there is no need to follow the OGL. The OGL is for people who wanted to write 3E compatable rules and to be able to put "d20" on their cover. If you don't care about being officially "d20" it doesn't matter. d20 is no different than putting "OSR" on the cover if Matt Finch or the OSRIC guys wanted to be able to officially "sanction" OSR/OSRIC/nameyourgamesystem. All they have to do is trademark the name "OSR" and then they can license the name to any other publisher who wanted to market their material as comparable with S&W or OSRIC.
The only penalty for not following the OGL is you cannot sell your product as "d20" or "open d20" (a trademark name that WotC controls). In the beginning, many people wanted in on the bandwagon of the popularity of 3e's "d20" licensing agreement, after all, the OSR hadn't yet taken off: This is clearly no longer necessary for many publishers, (especially wholly unnecessary for guys just printing up their house rules) just ask Pathfinder...
You have to want to license the franchise. If you want to sell hamburgers, you don't have to use the "McDondalds" name, you can make any kind of hamburger you want, even ones that look just like McDonalds hamburgers! But if you want to use the "McDonalds" name on the signs of your store, you have to make your hamburgers a certain way. The OGL is a McDonalds Franchise. That's it.
Unrelatedly, the OGL also does explain and include information on what actual IP WotC owns. "Dungeons and Dragons" "D&D", The names "mind flayer" and "beholder", "Elminster" "Mordenkanien" etc. These are important to know of course, as IP is what makes all their money. They can't have someone writing and selling Raistlin or Drizzt Do'Urden sexy fan fiction (unless they change the names...which is exactly what 50 shades of grey was...Twilight Fanfiction!). And if you actually want to see WotC move quickly, just try writing a computer game, novel or adventure called "Tasslehoff burrfoots adventures with Strhad von Zorovich. But the proper names and places and actual literary IP that WotC owns is wholly unrelated to the licensing agreement that a company would agree to in order to put an official "d20 compatible" logo on the box of their RPG.
OGL = d20 compatable logo. If you don't care about that logo...you don't need to care about OGL. (But don't put "open d20" on your book and not follow the OGL, that is also a no-no.)
WotC is already working on a licensing agreement for 5E. Right now it's closed and the only people they licensed is Monte Cook. WotC seems to want to have the OGL for 5E be limited to adventure writing which frees WotC to focus on officially sanctioned rule books like the PHB/DMG etc. They don't want a bunch of people publishing alternate PHB's that are "OGL with 5E" and creating another "Pathfinder". What does this mean in the future? If you want to write an adventure or dungeon and be able to put "d20 comparable with 5E dungeons and dragons", you have to follow the OGL. However, you can write an adventure or rule book or whatever you want and as long as you don't put "officially compatible with dungeons and dragons" you're good to go! I could rewrite the 5E players handbook if I wanted to and WotC realizes this...which is why the rules for the PHB are going to be free, because they realize they are worthless in a monetary sense. They realize that basic dungeons and dragons cannot be sold for money because too many people know how to write their own basic rules. The first thing they are selling is an adventure, which is mostly a literary work.
Now! If everyone starts using 5E basic d&d, then everyone who wants to sell an adventure is going to want to be able to say they're compatible with 5E, therefore everyone is going to want to comply with the new OGL (so they can put the logo on their adventure). But that is totally separate from wether they have to comply with the OGL.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 21, 2014 0:37:37 GMT -6
The only penalty for not following the OGL is you cannot sell your product as "d20" or "open d20" (a trademark name that WotC controls). In the beginning, many people wanted in on the bandwagon of the popularity of 3e's "d20" licensing agreement, after all, the OSR hadn't yet taken off: This is clearly no longer necessary for many publishers, (especially wholly unnecessary for guys just printing up their house rules) just ask Pathfinder... The OSR may not care about the d20 logo, but it depends very largely on the right to legally publish works that are Derivative Works of the SRD in order to rewrite older games. The downside of not being OGL compliant is that you cannot legally use/publish any of the material in the SRD (which is all the core mechanics and game-nouns that comprise D&D--hit dice, hit points, levels, PCs, NPCs, saving throws, the works). Without an OGL (or equivalent), the OSR would not have the legal publishing options that it has today. Pathfinder is an OGL-based game: See here. the OGL also does explain and include information on what actual IP WotC owns. "Dungeons and Dragons" "D&D", The names "mind flayer" and "beholder", "Elminster" "Mordenkanien" etc. Every potential OGL-publisher should read the whole of the OGL closely. Section 1(d) and (e) are particularly relevant to this discussion. Here they are: Section 1(d), as applied to the SRD, is what enables OGL-compliant publishers to legally use/publish works that are derivative of the SRD. The rest of WotC's product catalog is either their IP, or covered under different licenses. Publishing under the OGL is a good option when creating an emulation of a 3E or earlier version of D&D--so long as you can comply with the license (which isn't hard to do). If you choose to publish without the OGL then none of the above applies and you may potentially have some additional freedoms, but you won't be able to legally use/publish anything from the SRD (or any other OGL compliant open game content for that matter). This would be a good option when creating an RPG game from scratch that doesn't use any of the D&D open game content (e.g., doesn't use hit dice, hit points, saving throws, or anything else that appears in the SRD). If you publish under the OGL but don't/can't comply with its terms, then you're in the same position as if you had published without the OGL license at all. I.e., you can't legally use any open game content (from the SRD, or elsewhere). And nor can you legally use any WotC IP. It's not clear how this could ever be a good option for any game that emulates 3E or earlier D&D. |
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jun 21, 2014 8:16:36 GMT -6
Are you serious? Do you know how many games use hit points. Levels, PC, NPC etc? The SRD let's you cut and paste from the SRD. "derivative work" of the SRD It means you can cut and paste the sleep spell description without fear of plagiarism/copyright infringement. is that useful? Absolutely for some. However, an alternate route is simply to write your own sleep spell description and use your own words.
Serious man, read what I just quoted. Can you really believe WotC owns the word hit points? I don't know how to make this more clear. My sincere pardons, really, but it requires extreme level unawareness to believe anyone needs OGL/SRD to make a game with "levels and hitpoints". Which is not to say that WotC hasn't claimed that right anymore that apple claims their patent applies to "rectangular phones" and that anyone who makes a rectangular smart phone is in breach of their patents...of course they will make the claim--and have!--and failed in court! But it's important to understand patent/copyright trolling for what it is and ignore it.
Certainly it is unbecoming of anyone not paid by WotC to attempt to defend such ideas.
Does tolkien enterprises require a license from WotC to make a middle earth rpg that uses levels, hit points and has a spell called sleep in it? WotC can put restrictions in the OGL and SRD that they know are not legally binding, but do so anyway because that's what in-house lawyers do.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 21, 2014 22:28:38 GMT -6
Can you really believe WotC owns the word hit points? Of course I don't believe WotC owns the term "hit points", or any other English words. I do believe WotC owns the Dungeons & Dragons specific usage of hit points. That means; it's their IP that every AD&D weapon (for example) causes precisely X to Y many hit points damage versus S-M and L opponents. It's their IP that every D&D character or D&D monster should have exactly X to Y many hit points. It's their IP that every D&D spell, or D&D magic item, or D&D special ability should cause exactly X to Y many hit points damage. Same argument for all the other terms. The SRD let's you cut and paste from the SRD. "derivative work" of the SRD It means you can cut and paste the sleep spell description without fear of plagiarism/copyright infringement. Yes it does. But that's only the most trivial thing it facilitates. The real function of the OGL is that it also enables you to legally create a Derivative Work of the SRD's sleep spell. Which would otherwise be illegal.However, an alternate route is simply to write your own sleep spell description and use your own words. This is only legal because of the OGL cooper. It is not your (or my or anyone else's) inalienable Human right to go around creating Derivative Works of other people's creations. There is a whole body of copyright and IP law built specifically to regulate exactly this behaviour. This is why the term Derivative Work exists. If there was no OGL, then your rewritten version of the sleep spell would be at risk of being deemed to be a Derivative Work. If it were found to be too similar to the original, it would be branded a Derivative Work, and therefore an illegal copy of the original. Because of the OGL, the risk of your rewritten sleep spell being deemed an illegal Derivative Work is virtually eliminated. Under the OGL, OD&D's sleep spell (for example) can be rewritten as a legal Derivative of the SRD's sleep spell, rather than an illegal Derivative of OD&D's sleep spell. That is what the OGL is for. From what you've posted cooper, it seems you are willing to acknowledge that verbatim plagiarism, and use of trademarked terms are copyright breaches. I may not be reading you right, but you seem unwilling to acknowledge that creation of a Derivative Work (legal term) of the same verbatim original material is a copyright breach. You seem unwilling to acknowledge that the OGL facilitates the creation of legal Derivative Works of the SRD. If that's the case, I don't think we need go on. |
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jun 21, 2014 22:58:26 GMT -6
I agree we are at an impasse. The sticking point for me, delineating between what we agree on (plagiarism is clearly verboten without the OGL) is that a "sleep spell" is indeed derivative work...but not derivative of WotC as it is simple enough to find an instance of spells of sleep predating dungeons and dragons. In fact most everything in d&d is derivative. Gygax says as much with Appendix N. Video games and other RPG's and games like Pokemon without any regard to the OGL use terms like "hit points" sleep spells and even magic missiles. and it is fair to assume that the rest of the world considers them common terms no different than "health" and if WotC could sue video games and other RPG's to pay them royalties for these things, they would have done so long ago.
In fact derivative work is such a weak legal case that there is now a movie coming out based on a novel (both of which making hundreds of millions of dollars) based on fan fiction of the Twilight books (50 shades of grey) with none of the money going to the author of Twilght. All the author of 50 shades of grey did was (after the story became popular) change the names of the characters not to infringe on the Twilight IP. The lesson is: If you use your own words it is legally your own literary work. Sword of Shannara did it as well re: Tolkien. The only thing you really own is Proper Names and the actual text that you write. Heck, the Tolkien estate can't even stop D&D from using Rangers who heal and use crystal balls, wizards with pointy hats and pipes and Halflings, what makes you think WotC can stop anyone from using the term "hit points?" The most they could do was to force Gygax to rename the Balrog to "Balor". TSR didn't even have to try that hard in renaming it!
HIT POINTS: (insert words written by an employee of WotC) <--------this is plagiarism, derivative, and illegal outside of the OGL.
HIT POINTS: (insert my own words, my own thoughts about what they mean within the game) <---------this is an original, if cliche, literary work and protected.
If all tolkien estate (if anyone has rights to fantasy ideas its tolkien right?) could do is ask TSR to change balrog to balor (while keeping literally everything about the balrog the same), what do you think WotC can do to someone who wants to use a mind-flayer?
The Balor isn't in the OGL right? That means I'm infringing on who exactly if I include it in my OSR game? I agree with you that WotC actually claim ownership of these and many other things, just like apple laid claim to a patent on a rectangular phone (I.e. If another company made a smart phone that was a rectangle apple considered it a breech of patent)--there is no law against laying claim to almost anything, but they are always laughed out of court if challenged.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 22, 2014 4:59:39 GMT -6
An interesting note on "hit points" is that Judges Guild used HTK (hits to kill) back in the old days, I assume because they weren't able to use the term "hit points" in their material. Material that was openly advertised as D&D product and okayed by TSR. Otherwise, why make such a change?
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 22, 2014 5:29:35 GMT -6
The sticking point for me ... is that a "sleep spell" is indeed derivative work...but not derivative of WotC as it is simple enough to find an instance of spells of sleep predating dungeons and dragons. In fact most everything in d&d is derivative. I've said this already, but will repeat for your convenience: the common language meaning of "derivative" is not the same as the legal meaning of the term "Derivate Work". D&D may well be derivative of (as in "inspired by") many prior works, but that doesn't mean it is legally a Derivative Work (as in a "copy of") any of them. They are different meanings. If you genuinely want to argue that D&D's sleep spell is a legally Derivative Work, then you'd have a better chance of convincing me if you could point out a prior copyright source that describes a sleep spell in "D&D-like" terms, probably having game-stat equivalents such a range, area of effect, saves (or equivalent), and/or describing numbers and types of creatures of various hit dice or sizes or strengths affected, and so on, which D&D is supposedly a legal Derivative of. Until then, I can only agree that the sleep spell is derivative of (as in "inspired by") many prior sources, but not that it's a legal Derivative of any of them. HIT POINTS: (insert words written by an employee of WotC) <--------this is plagiarism, derivative, and illegal outside of the OGL. HIT POINTS: (insert my own words, my own thoughts about what they mean within the game) <---------this is an original, if cliche, literary work and protected. The second line would only be an "original literary work" if it were different enough to any copyright text to not be deemed a Derivative Work. If it were pretty similar to any copyright text, then it would be up to the lawyers to decide whether it was legally Original or Derivative. The last two words you added: " and protected" are important. Any prior copyright text would have exactly the same protections as you expect your work to have. Let's add a third line: HIT POINTS: (insert cooper's own thoughts about what hit points mean within the game, rearranged somewhat with some extra fluff around it, published as waysoftheearth's work) <---------waysoftheearth's original literary work or not? Why? |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 25, 2014 22:31:32 GMT -6
HIT POINTS: (insert words written by an employee of WotC) <--------this is plagiarism, derivative, and illegal outside of the OGL. HIT POINTS: (insert my own words, my own thoughts about what they mean within the game) <---------this is an original, if cliche, literary work and protected. Let's add a third line: HIT POINTS: (insert cooper's own thoughts about what hit points mean within the game, rearranged somewhat with some extra fluff around it, published as waysoftheearth's work) <---------waysoftheearth's original literary work or not? Why? Can I presume cooper that, seeing how you wrote "and protected" after your own version of HIT POINTS, you'd agree that my subsequent rearrangement of your literary work would be an illegal Derivative Work? If No; then why bother saying "and protected" at all? If Yes; then why would your definition of HIT POINTS be protected, while EGG's class tables, attack matrices, and so on, are not? |
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jun 25, 2014 23:23:22 GMT -6
You can't copywrite a math table. The only thing that would be protected is my actual prose. I can't patent the idea that wizards roll a d4 for hitpoints.
You are actually free to change the name of all the places and people in the hobbit and rewrite the story as long as you don't lift verbatim tolkiens prose. Literally you can do that.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 25, 2014 23:59:06 GMT -6
You can't copywrite a math table. What is a "math table"? The numbers appearing in the OD&D tables are a work of Human creativity. I.e., there is no mathematical formula that accurately calculates the score a monster with X many HD, or a fighter of level X, needs to hit AC2 (or if there is, please enlighten me). If EGG had chosen to publish the attack matrices as prose rather than in table form (e.g., "At first thru third levels, a fighting-man requires a score of 17 or more to hit AC2," etc. etc.) his creative input would have been no different. If EGG had chosen to publish English words in his tables (e.g., "one" instead of "1", "two" instead of "2", etc., etc.) his creative input would have been no different. edit: You are actually free to change the name of all the places and people in the hobbit and rewrite the story as long as you don't lift verbatim tolkiens prose. Literally you can do that. the story is changing it. I agree that re-writting in your own words is fine. What I'm trying to argue is that only rearranging the original content without changing it and calling it your own is not properly legal. E.g., if I published my own version of The Hobbit (The Hobbut) in which I changed all the proper nouns but otherwise only changed the order in which the chapters, paragraphs, and sentences appeared: I don't believe that would be legal. This is analogous to publishing my own version of OD&D in which I rearrange the presentation of the tabulated information, but otherwise leave its content identical to the original. I don't believe that is legal; not even under the OGL (except for content that appears in the SRD or in other OGL-compliant Open Game Content--that would be legal because of the OGL). |
|
bea
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 133 
|
Post by bea on Jun 26, 2014 0:00:54 GMT -6
I doubt we'll get any further down this line without any actual legal prejudice cases. That said, I'm not entirely certain you're in agreement of definitions. May I be so bold as to offer an example, from how I perceive your stances?
Let's call this case One (a game that has no OGL):
Case Two is when Some Dude decides to make his own version of the game and copies the paragraph from Some Game, publishing it as his own.
Case Three is when Mister Gamer decides to make his own version of the game, but doesn't want to be a criminal. He writes:
Case Four is that last added one; Lord Quill wants to make his own game, but thinks the original description is great (though lacking slightly). So:
Which is derivative, in the legal sense?
Case One is the original. Although inspired by (and in many ways a creative derivative of) many previous works, we'll assume that it's legally considered an original work.
Case Two is an clearly a copyright violation. I think we can all agree on that.
Case Three? I presume it could be construed as a derivative work - but is it a clear cut case? If it isn't, I'm not sure how to continue on that tangent. If it's up to a jury and there is no applicable prejudice this could be either, right? We won't know until tried in court.
Case Four? I would assume this is a more clear cut case of a derivative work - and in this case a copyright violation. Mostly because a large chunk of the original text is actually still present, thereby establishing its origin pretty much like a fingerprint. Compare to dictionaries: anyone can make a dictionary. Back in the olden days (don't know if this still happens) some publishers would insert a couple of fake words in their dictionaries, just to be able to spot when someone had copied their work. Does this indicate that the copy would most likely be construed as legal if the fake words were not included?
|
|
bea
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 133
|
Post by bea on Jun 26, 2014 0:05:29 GMT -6
You can't copywrite a math table. What is a "math table"? The numbers appearing in the OD&D tables are a work of Human creativity. I.e., there is no mathematical formula that accurately calculates the score a monster with X many HD, or a fighter of level X, needs to hit AC2 (or if there is, please enlighten me). If EGG had chosen to publish the attack matrices as prose rather than in table form (e.g., "At first thru third levels, a fighting-man requires a score of 17 or more to hit AC2," etc. etc.) his creative input would have been no different. If EGG had chosen to publish English words in his tables (e.g., "one" instead of "1", "two" instead of "2", etc., etc.) his creative input would have been no different. This table can be rewritten as a mathematical function or algorithm. Is it still copyrightable? |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 26, 2014 0:38:42 GMT -6
This table can be rewritten as a mathematical function or algorithm. Is it still copyrightable? Unless you could convince a court that the author "didn't really create anything, he merely applied this commonly available mathematical function", then yes. I don't reckon they had the computing power, or the inclination, to calculate those function in the early 70s. Besides which, we're constantly being told here on odd74 how the rules are a result of the authors just "making s*it up". |
|
bea
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 133
|
Post by bea on Jun 26, 2014 0:44:43 GMT -6
This table can be rewritten as a mathematical function or algorithm. Is it still copyrightable? Unless you could convince a court that the author "didn't really create anything, he merely applied this commonly available mathematical function", then yes. I don't reckon they had the computing power, or the inclination, to calculate those function in the early 70s. Besides which, we're constantly being told here on odd74 how the rules are a result of the authors just "making s*it up". In that case it should definitely be copyrightable. |
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jun 26, 2014 7:50:39 GMT -6
I'm the last person who should be commenting on the validity of copyright legislation, but it seems obvious to me that the tables in ODD, whether XP progression or to-hit need, or even saving throws, are not in any way "made-up" wholecloth, but are instead exactly an application of "commonly available mathematical function(s)", i.e., sequenced (matrixed?) addition or subtraction. Am I missing something?
Also, as I understand the legality of reusing certain terms, the only way TSR, and later WotC, and now Hasbro, could protect terms like "hit points" or "saving throws" or "armor class" would've been to copyright and/or trademark them back in the day. AND, perhaps tangentially, ALL THOSE TERMS already existed in war games BEFORE ODD was published. Which I think lends credence to coop's position of ODD being a "Derivative" work. Maybe.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 26, 2014 8:17:42 GMT -6
it seems obvious to me that the tables in ODD, whether XP progression or to-hit need, or even saving throws, are not in any way "made-up" wholecloth, but are instead exactly an application of "commonly available mathematical function(s)", i.e., sequenced (matrixed?) addition or subtraction. Am I missing something? Please show us then: What expression do you suppose was used to calculate the M-U XP requirements per experience level? What expression will yield the number of 2nd level clerics spells available per level? What expression will yield the "to hit AC 2" value per fighter level? Or per monster HD? It isn't quite as easy as it seems. Even the simplest case, the fighter XP, isn't genuinely trivial. It's 0 XP at level 1, arbitrarily 2,000 XP at level 2, doubled from there up, but mysteriously not quite doubled at level 8. I'm sure a math-person *could* ultimately reverse engineer all those "progression" type tables from functions. But I don't believe the tables were actually put together that way. Those aside, there are also many tables in OD&D that are pure invention without any progression. Such as (for example): Equipment lists and their prices, The encumbrance table, The reaction/loyalty result tables, Treasure type table, Jewelry value, Magic item distributions, Monster statistics, Monster distributions by dungeon level tables, Wilderness encounter tables, Ship statistics, Etc. etc. These things couldn't have been calculated; they must have been authored. |
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jun 26, 2014 8:32:10 GMT -6
Well, sure those others; I was only referring to, well, probably the ones I mentioned.  I'm a little fuzzy on my math terminology, but aren't addition and subtraction (or multiplication and division, for that matter) "expressions"? If so, isn't the mathematical expression for, say, fighter XP progression from level 1-2 "0 + 2000", and the expression for progressing from 2-3 "2001 + 1999"? Is there some requirement that a mathematical expression, to be non-copyrightable, must be somehow a mathematically "coherent" algorithm? I mean, an "error" or idiosyncracy in a mathematical expression is still a mathematical expression, right? |
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jun 26, 2014 8:54:17 GMT -6
Very nice breakdown Bea!
Concerning mathematical functions and creative work. OSRIC went the route of slightly changing the tables. I concede it would be beneficial for anyone making a game to start their armor classes with perhaps "no armor" at AC 11. Heck Different versions of D&D do this (AC 10 or AC 9). Same with experience tables of acquisition of spells. It may indeed be true that the wizard spell progression (which one? Od&d? Mentzer? Ad&d?) could be argued to be artistic work--though I still rather think it's not, given the randomness that Gygax assigned them, it's simple enough to tweak them--which many of us already do in our home games.
So a warhorse on the equipment table costs 210gp or 190? But it begs the question, what does HASBRO own intellectually that gives them the sole right to a the cost of a make believe horse for 200 gold pieces? I guess if they could prove that since the gold piece values of an item list are somewhat random, then for someone to have a similar equipment list with the exact same costs would show that they simply copied the chart wholesale. Again, I would say it is simple enough to slightly change costs and add/remove some items, thereby transferring a basic equipment list into ones own "creative work".
in fact I'm fairly certain that everyone of us here could sit down and write a unique equipment list, experience table and magic user spell progression without looking at any published work to copy from. Though I'm still not convinced there is any legal responsibility to do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 26, 2014 17:51:40 GMT -6
I'm a little fuzzy on my math terminology, but aren't addition and subtraction (or multiplication and division, for that matter) "expressions"? If so, isn't the mathematical expression for, say, fighter XP progression from level 1-2 "0 + 2000", and the expression for progressing from 2-3 "2001 + 1999"? Is there some requirement that a mathematical expression, to be non-copyrightable, must be somehow a mathematically "coherent" algorithm? I mean, an "error" or idiosyncracy in a mathematical expression is still a mathematical expression, right? Addition and subtraction are mathematical operations. An expression would usually assign or resolve one or more operations. E.g., An expression might be something like: 2 x 12 = 24. Or, for this discussion, we might try to figure out an expression that will calculate the fighter's XP requirement like this: XP Required = (fighter level^2) * 1000 The above expression is correct for fighter level 4 because 16,000 = (4^2)*1000. But it's not true at other fighter levels. So this can't be the expression EGG used to generate the fighter XP progression. The point is, it is pretty difficult to find a single expression that will calculate the progression of fighter XP at all levels, or the numbers in any of EGG's other tables, because he made the numbers up. Or, at the least, he made up the pivotal numbers from which the remainder can be derived. He invented the fact that fighters should require 2,000 XP for 2nd level while clerics require 1,500 and M-U's require 2,500. There is no "formula" for that. Likewise, he invented the M-U XP progression, the spell progressions, and the attack matrix progressions (or at least the numbers required to hit AC2 by level or hit dice). I agree that the numbers required to hit the other ACs are simply derived from the number to hit AC2, and that "progression" isn't copyright. Anyone can subtract 1 from the previous number, that's no big deal. Anyone can double the XP required from one level to the next, that's no big deal either. But that won't give you the exact OD&D tables. Copying EGG's exact XP progressions, and exact "to hit AC2" progressions is not simply applying a common formula, because there isn't one. It's actually copying someone else's work. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 26, 2014 18:09:20 GMT -6
I concede it would be beneficial for anyone making a game to start their armor classes with perhaps "no armor" at AC 11. Heck Different versions of D&D do this (AC 10 or AC 9). Same with experience tables of acquisition of spells. It may indeed be true that the wizard spell progression (which one? Od&d? Mentzer? Ad&d?) could be argued to be artistic work--though I still rather think it's not, given the randomness that Gygax assigned them, it's simple enough to tweak them--which many of us already do in our home games. So a warhorse on the equipment table costs 210gp or 190? But it begs the question, what does HASBRO own intellectually that gives them the sole right to a the cost of a make believe horse for 200 gold pieces? I guess if they could prove that since the gold piece values of an item list are somewhat random, then for someone to have a similar equipment list with the exact same costs would show that they simply copied the chart wholesale. Again, I would say it is simple enough to slightly change costs and add/remove some items, thereby transferring a basic equipment list into ones own "creative work". YES! This (the bold/blue parts) is precisely what I have been trying to get across. Thank you for your patience. in fact I'm fairly certain that everyone of us here could sit down and write a unique equipment list, experience table and magic user spell progression without looking at any published work to copy from. Though I'm still not convinced there is any legal responsibility to do so. The creator of the OGL advises OGL publishers that not tweaking the numbers/patterns of numbers is legally dubious, and that courts have ruled against "not tweaking". So I reckon it is the OGL publisher's responsibility to "tweak" the numbers in order to be legit. The question in my mind is more: Given that it's so easy to do, and "tweaking" the numbers actually makes it your work and eliminates any question of copyright infringement... why wouldn't you do it?? The only possible reason I can think of is: if you (generic you, not specific individual) specifically intend to copy the original exactly. In which case, there's no question in my mind that it's in copyright trouble. |
|
|
|
Post by oakesspalding on Jun 26, 2014 18:58:23 GMT -6
Can anyone here answer this question:
Does the fact that WOTC has generally left the retro-clones alone for going on eight or nine years now set any sort of precedent that might make it less likely for a court to rule in it's favor in a borderline case? In other words, can you let a violation go and then pounce any time you want? Or does the law interpret letting it go as tacit approval? My understanding is that one of the reasons that some intellectual property holders so aggressively go after border-liners is not merely to scare away other border-liners but to signal to a future court that they have been serious about their rights from the beginning, and thus are not merely engaging in competitive gamesmanship. Of course I might be totally wrong.
|
|
bea
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 133
|
Post by bea on Jun 27, 2014 0:09:33 GMT -6
The creator of the OGL advises OGL publishers that not tweaking the numbers/patterns of numbers is legally dubious, and that courts have ruled against "not tweaking". So I reckon it is the OGL publisher's responsibility to "tweak" the numbers in order to be legit. Now I'm confused again O.o I thought the OGL gave you permission to copy Open Game Content verbatim? And thereby, if you *don't* include the OGL you must tweak here and there to make it your work, lest it will be illegal... Am I making sense? |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 27, 2014 0:17:42 GMT -6
Now I'm confused again O.o I thought the OGL gave you permission to copy Open Game Content verbatim? And thereby, if you *don't* include the OGL you must tweak here and there to make it your work, lest it will be illegal... Am I making sense? The OGL does give you permission to copy Open Game Content verbatim. But OD&D is not Open Game Content, and nor is any D&D material prior to the SRD. OSR publishers can legally emulate older games systems (such as OD&D) by creating a legal Derivative Work of the SRD that closely (but not exactly!) resembles their preferred game. This whole debate is about the legal difference between something that "closely" and "exactly!" resembles the earlier material. The OGL creator referred specifically to the attack matrices and class tables of OSRIC, advising that those tables ought to be "tweaked" in order to be legal. That's because the original AD&D tables are not covered by the OGL, so the original table can't legally be copied. The same thinking can be applied to any work under the OGL. |
|
