This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons  (Read 18980 times)

DocJones

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1081
  • theofascist
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #240 on: October 03, 2022, 08:56:09 PM »
Effete, a collection of game mechanics can be *copyrighted*, but they are not generally trademarked. Trademark applies only to distinct text or images that are used in marketing - so for RPGs, trademark is only distinctive content that is on the cover of the book, not in the interior. The Open Game License is a *copyright* license, not a trademark license. It is explicitly *not* a trademark license, as specified in item #7 of the OGL.

No. The specific collection of game mechanics constitutes a "design" that identifies a particular system with a particular brand. That falls under trademark protection. Copyright protects the specific phrasing of such a design. To use your own words, from your website (emphasis mine):
"A board or role-playing game relies heavily upon ideas. Ideas themselves cannot be copyrighted -- only specific text which explains the idea. The same game rule, expressed through totally different text, is not an infringement."
Why would the OGL need to grant "copyright permission" if the law already recognizes that simple rephrasing does not constitute a violation? Because copyright is not the issue; trademark is.
Game mechanics/systems can be patented, not copyrighted nor trademarked.
But if there is prior work then they can't be patented.  Also patent protection terms for a system aren't that long (17 years?) 
The literal expression of a game system can of course be copyrighted.


jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11746
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #241 on: October 03, 2022, 08:56:53 PM »
Effete, a collection of game mechanics can be *copyrighted*, but they are not generally trademarked. Trademark applies only to distinct text or images that are used in marketing - so for RPGs, trademark is only distinctive content that is on the cover of the book, not in the interior. The Open Game License is a *copyright* license, not a trademark license. It is explicitly *not* a trademark license, as specified in item #7 of the OGL.

No. The specific collection of game mechanics constitutes a "design" that identifies a particular system with a particular brand. That falls under trademark protection. Copyright protects the specific phrasing of such a design. To use your own words, from your website (emphasis mine):
"A board or role-playing game relies heavily upon ideas. Ideas themselves cannot be copyrighted -- only specific text which explains the idea. The same game rule, expressed through totally different text, is not an infringement."
Why would the OGL need to grant "copyright permission" if the law already recognizes that simple rephrasing does not constitute a violation? Because copyright is not the issue; trademark is.

I'm not a lawyer, but I linked to the official definition of trademark from the USPTO just before, which doesn't fit with what you're saying here.

To elaborate, copyright doesn't just protect against verbatim copying. This was established by the precedent of "character copyright" in stories, which was cemented in the 1973 lawsuit where Sid and Marty Krofft sued McDonald's by claiming that the entire McDonaldland premise plagiarized their TV show H.R. Pufnstuf.  Even though McDonald's characters had different names and changed many details, it was still held to be infringement. Likewise, sound-alike music has been held to be infringement - even if the creator is just riffing on a bit of melody they remembered. So in general, rephrasing is not sufficient to protect against copyright infringement for characters, settings, and other creative elements. WotC could potentially sue over copyright infringement if someone created a beholder-like creature even if it didn't use the name "beholder" or use verbatim text.


However, the precedent is different for *rules*. Rules and mechanics can be protected by patent, but not copyright. From the start of the U.S. Copyright Office FAQ:

Quote
Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed.

So a single rule can be rephrased, and it shouldn't in theory violate copyright. One can't also then copyright 50 different phrasings of a mechanic and then effectively get a patent that lasts for 95 years instead of 20 years.

However, an RPG system as a whole has a lot of creative expression that goes beyond what most people would call mechanics. Elements like races, spells, classes, monsters, and magic items can all be creatively distinct. Also, there's an argument that a lot of mechanics together might be distinctive enough to be considered "creative" rather than "rules" to the law. This would need to be hashed out in court, and as far as I know, the major tabletop RPG lawsuits have been settled out of court rather than going to a judge and jury.


2) The *only* retroclone that is legalized under the OGL is a retroclone of 3rd edition D&D that doesn't include the experience table. It does not, for example, allow a retroclone of 1st edition AD&D, which has a lot of text and mechanics that are unique and were never made into open game content.

I spent a good deal of time trying to find the relevant information off the Wizards website, but couldn't. For what it's worth, this was taken from wikipedia:
"Dungeons & Dragons retro-clones are fantasy role-playing games that emulate earlier editions of Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) no longer supported by Wizards of the Coast. They are made possible by the release of later editions' rules in a System Reference Document under the terms of the Open Game License, which allow the use of much of the proprietary terminology of D&D that might otherwise collectively constitute copyright infringement. However, as per the license, these games lack the brand names Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, and all the other trademarks associated with those brands.

Here's how I would read that. The 3rd edition D&D rules were released as open game content - which opened up things like races, classes, spell names, monsters and other creative elements. Because copyright only weakly protects *rules*, a retroclone of AD&D can potentially slip by in rephrasing distinctive AD&D rules which are different from D&D3 rules, or simply saying that the "fair use" clause allows minor copying. And as long as they don't threaten D&D, WotC isn't inclined to take legal action, so it's in a grey area.

Retro-clones of games other than D&D tend to rely on the game company not being around any more to sue them. Also, being free games they can skate by like fan fiction - which is often technically a copyright violation but doesn't motivate the company enough to go through a lawsuit.


3) You reference the OGL in relation to Star Frontiers, but nothing in the original Star Frontiers was ever released under the OGL, so the OGL is irrelevant to releasing Star Frontiers.
The OGL was drafted by WotC when they acquired all those old properties, and according to wikipedia, those properties use the OGL for open gaming. This would explain why OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, ACKS, et al include the OGL in their products. The OGL is the license needed to use Wizards' properties.

As I understand it, OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, ACKS include the OGL so that they can copy 3rd edition D&D, and then add on their own changes to make that open content more like earlier edition D&D. If you look at their legal disclaimer, they will reference the WotC SRD that has 3rd edition D&D content, allowing them to use general D&D elements like classes, races, and spells. They rely on rephrasing or just not being a threat to avoid lawsuit otherwise. Still, unless Wizards of the Coast has explicitly released something as Open Game Content in an SRD, however, then it is not available. There is no SRD for other games releasing their material as open content.

However, copyright only weakly protects rules, so creating look-alike games is possible even if one doesn't use the OGL. There were lots of D&D-like systems that were released prior to the release of the OGL in 2000. That is what enables other retro-clones.

Zelen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 861
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #242 on: October 03, 2022, 09:00:26 PM »
Copyright discussion pooping up this thread a bit much.

RPGPundit

  • Administrator - The Final Boss of Internet Shitlords
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48855
    • http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #243 on: October 06, 2022, 08:50:00 AM »
Copyright discussion pooping up this thread a bit much.

Agreed. Stay on the listed topic, people.
LION & DRAGON: Medieval-Authentic OSR Roleplaying is available now! You only THINK you've played 'medieval fantasy' until you play L&D.


My Blog:  http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/
The most famous uruguayan gaming blog on the planet!

NEW!
Check out my short OSR supplements series; The RPGPundit Presents!


Dark Albion: The Rose War! The OSR fantasy setting of the history that inspired Shakespeare and Martin alike.
Also available in Variant Cover form!
Also, now with the CULTS OF CHAOS cult-generation sourcebook

ARROWS OF INDRA
Arrows of Indra: The Old-School Epic Indian RPG!
NOW AVAILABLE: AoI in print form

LORDS OF OLYMPUS
The new Diceless RPG of multiversal power, adventure and intrigue, now available.

bricy45er

  • Newbie
  • *
  • b
  • Posts: 1
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #244 on: October 06, 2022, 10:35:42 AM »
interesting information