License alternatives for 3rd party D100 supplements

[peterb]

I am unable to locate the Beholder trademark. Am I missing something?

The problem here is the claim that a word that only appears in a descriptive text is a trademark. Such a claim is groundless.

In order for "Beholder", "Strike Ranks", "Armour Class" and "Magic Points" to be trademarks they must have been used as such. A trademark is a symbol of a commercial connection between a product or service and its source. In order for a mark to operate as a trademark it must be used to symbolize such a connection in market activities, such as for example in adds, in business correspondence, on packages etc.

Very few names, terms etc. from RPG:s have actually been used in as trademarks. Beholder, Broo and Jack-o-Bear are three examples that might qualify as trademarks. Spellnames, skillnames, class names etc. most certainly don't qualify.

Since names, game terms, spell names etc. must qualify as "original" in order to be copyright protected and in most jurisdictions they won't, they are fair game from a copyright perspective as well.

In fact, from a European perspective (NB!), I see no reason why a supplement (an adventure, setting or sourcebook):

* created by a private person;

* published in a non-commercial context;

* in Europe (e.g. on a web server situated in a EC jurisdiction);

* that only refers to and/or quotes from a RPG source book (or any other source for that matter);

would infringe on any copy- or trademark rights.

Edited December 6, 2009 by peterb
for clarity

[Nightshade]

No, they really can't. If you assign the rights YOU hold of a work to the public domain, it's public domain. No can reverse that. You cannot take the text Shakespeare's Hamlet (assuredly public domain throughout the world, what with him having been dead for centuries) and publish it with your name as author and now claim you hold the copyright and expect it to stand up in any court in the world.

Yes, I know you can copyright your specific presentation of that text separately from the text itself, and yes, I know that there is the whole complex area of "derivative works" - but the basic point stands: Evil RPG Publishing Corps could NOT take your explicitly Public Domain document and claim that text as their own copyright and expect it to stand up in court. I suppose they might hope to have deeper pockets for an extended legal battle BEFORE it got to court - but contrary to popular myth, that's NOT tactic that most legal briefs would recommend in this case...

Perhaps I've been misinformed here, but my understanding was that a statement of public domain doesn't actually protect against this; its just a (limited) defense against claims it isn't public domain. Shakespeare would be unlikely to be successfully used this way because its so well known, but I'm fairly certain people have tried it with other, less well known material with a light buffing of change on it.

But IANAL and perhaps the discussions I've read have been confused or I've misunderstood some key element.

[Ian Absentia]

That's why I don't understand the disdain for GORE.

I'm a day late and a dollar shy here, but...

You really don't understand? GORE is a patently obvious use of the OGL, the MRQ SRD, and the public domain content of the Lovecraft "Mythos" to perform an end-run around an existing and in-print game -- Call of Cthulhu. If CoC had been a much-lamented OOP title at the time, maybe the critics would be more forgiving.

What I don't understand is why the author of GORE felt compelled to undermine Chaosium's best selling title in print. Just because he could?

!i!

[Atgxtg]

Perhaps I've been misinformed here, but my understanding was that a statement of public domain doesn't actually protect against this; its just a (limited) defense against claims it isn't public domain. Shakespeare would be unlikely to be successfully used this way because its so well known, but I'm fairly certain people have tried it with other, less well known material with a light buffing of change on it.

But IANAL and perhaps the discussions I've read have been confused or I've misunderstood some key element.

The key difficulty in an unregistered copyright case is in proving that you are the author of said work to begin with. Thus you are correct in that by not copyrighting something you can be left vulnerable to someone else. You would need to be able to prove that you wrote said item, and that you did so before the other claimant.

Also, as Nick has pointed out, having deep pockets helps. Unfortunately, it doesn't really matter much who is in the right if one side doesn't have the cash to be able to fight it out.

But, considering just how limited copyright protection is in regards to RPGs, I don't see much to be afraid of. As I've said before you cannot copyright systems (it says so under US copyright law), so there would be little problem with an open, generic RPG.

[seneschal]

I'm a day late and a dollar shy here, but...

You really don't understand? GORE is a patently obvious use of the OGL, the MRQ SRD, and the public domain content of the Lovecraft "Mythos" to perform an end-run around an existing and in-print game -- Call of Cthulhu. If CoC had been a much-lamented OOP title at the time, maybe the critics would be more forgiving.

What I don't understand is why the author of GORE felt compelled to undermine Chaosium's best selling title in print. Just because he could?

!i!

Although one or two folks agree with me, the consensus of the board seems to be that GORE is (insert reverb here) EVIL or unnecessary, or both. ;-(

Just for the record, GORE is 100% Mythos-free. No sanity rules (although a fan produced some later). No monsters (or rules for creating critters of any kind). No default setting. There are suggested skill sets for fantasy, modern, and science fiction campaigns and a rudimentary magic system but nothing remotely hinting of Glorantha or Lovecraft's 1920s era.

"No shoggoths were harmed in the production of this retro-clone role-playing game."

[Ian Absentia]

Just for the record, GORE is 100% Mythos-free....

[...snip...]

...nothing remotely hinting of Glorantha or Lovecraft's 1920s era.

The art certainly suggests differently.

!i!

[seneschal]

Yeah, it was royalty free clip art, or some sort of one-use deal -- and somewhat off-putting for a casual viewer. My wife took one look and refused to play, ever. But the actual contents were truly generic.

[Ian Absentia]

But the actual contents were truly generic.

You're kidding, right? Bad art, yes, but anything but generic. There's Cthulhu, a flying polyp, a shoggoth, a bad copy of the monstrous avatar of Nyarlathotep from the cover of Chaosium's Masks of Nyarlathotep, a gug, one of the Ancient Race, Chaugnar Faugn.... About the only "generic" pieces were of a couple of serpent men, and even those relate to the Mythos.

!i!

[seneschal]

Actual contents = actual words game product comprised of = no Mythos material

[seneschal]

Actual contents = actual words game product comprised of = no Mythos material

I kid you not!

[Guest Vile Traveller]

You're kidding, right? Bad art, yes, but anything but generic. There's Cthulhu, [...] About the only "generic" pieces were of a couple of serpent men, and even those relate to the Mythos.

Methinks confusion reigns. I believe seneschal is saying that the contents of GORE other than the art are generic. That's certainly my impression, although like everyone else I seem to have problems ignoring the art and thus never get very far with the text. This is, in my opinion, The Big Problem - the presentation is as if for a horror game (even the acronymical name), and one cloned from CoC at that. If it were re-packaged with generic art to match the generic content, people might actually be able to sit down and read the thing.

Still, it brings us back to the fact that GORE is something based on existing OGL SRDs, so I don't see the point of using it for my hypothetical D% product. I'd rather go straight to the source and use the original SRDs as the basis for 3rd party publication.

EDIT: Dammit, beaten to the click!

Edited December 7, 2009 by Vile

[soltakss]

Although one or two folks agree with me, the consensus of the board seems to be that GORE is (insert reverb here) EVIL or unnecessary, or both. ;-(

What do they know?

Just for the record, GORE is 100% Mythos-free. No sanity rules (although a fan produced some later). No monsters (or rules for creating critters of any kind). No default setting. There are suggested skill sets for fantasy, modern, and science fiction campaigns and a rudimentary magic system but nothing remotely hinting of Glorantha or Lovecraft's 1920s era.

I thought that GORE was good. In fact, I didn't see any Mythos stuff in there otherwise I'd have run a mile.

GORE seems to be a good hack at a modernish horror RQ-Style ruleset. I wouldn't touch CoC with a bargepole but I'd use GORE for a twenties/thirties/later game.

[dragonewt]

What I don't understand is why the author of GORE felt compelled to undermine Chaosium's best selling title in print. Just because he could?

Does Chaosium have control of, or own, the Cthulhu mythos?

Are the works of Lovecraft in the public domain?

Why are there many other Cthulhu-based RPG game systems?

RPGNow.com - Cthulhu Search

Do these undermine BRP CoC?

How does GORE compare once these points are considered?

[RosenMcStern]

Does Chaosium have control of, or own, the Cthulhu mythos?

They own the rights to making games.

Are the works of Lovecraft in the public domain?

Yes, but the works of Derleth and other are not.

Why are there many other Cthulhu-based RPG game systems?

RPGNow.com - Cthulhu Search

Some are licensed by Chaosium. Others use other systems, like Robin Laws's GUMSHOE for Trail of Cthulhu.

How does GORE compare once these points are considered?

I think the only relevant point is that GORE is no longer supported by the publisher. R.I.P.

(Although in strange eons, even GORE might....)

[dragonewt]

I think the only relevant point is that GORE is no longer supported by the publisher.

The source is out there, and OGL, and ready as a basis for anyone else to pickup and develop if the current format is more suitable for their goals. That doesn't require support from the publisher. Or am I missing something?

[frogspawner]

I think the only relevant point is that GORE is no longer supported by the publisher.

From the business point of view, maybe so.

But it appears that GORE has used text from Elric!, which is not OGL, or 'open' in any other way. That's naughty. (Though perhaps not illegal - I don't know how exactly it matches Chaosium's copyrighted words, since I don't have Elric. If so, that'd presumably invalidate GORE's OGL).

Anyway, it seems GORE is not good from a moral point of view, either.

(Nothing to do with it's Cthulhiod artwork. That just shows the target market.)

[peterb]

Anyway, it seems GORE is not good from a moral point of view, either.

Why should it be something immoral or wrong about GORE?

It's a restatement of the MRQ SRD. I've always seen GORE as trying to fill the same niche that Classic Fantasy has entered lately.

[dragonewt]

But it appears that GORE has used text from Elric!, which is not OGL, or 'open' in any other way.

Citation required please.

If this is the case, does this mean that GORE is legally tainted, and therefore legally unusable?

[RosenMcStern]

Why would you use GORE, an unsupported system, over OpenQuest, which is supported?

[Guest Vile Traveller]

To be fair, the two are very different when you get down to it. I'd say it's more of a question of personal preference. From what I can see (I really can't get far whenever I try to read GORE), I personally prefer OpenQuest in tone and substance. But I would probably still rather go to the source (the MRQ SRD) and work from that.

[frogspawner]

Citation required please.

If this is the case, does this mean that GORE is legally tainted, and therefore legally unusable?

OK, here's what leads me to think that way.

GORE, Learning Spells, p35:

"If a character locates a spell from someone else's book, he must be able to read the language to understand it. If the character possess fluency in the language equal to or greater than INT x5, he has no problem reading the text. If the skill level is below INT x5, he must succeed in a Language skill roll in order to read it."

This I found suspiciously similar to the system (although not the exact words) used in BRP...

BRP, p126:

"Your character must be able to read the writing to learn from the grimoire. If your character has a skill rating of less than INT x 5% in the language the grimoire is written in, he or she will have to make a successful Language roll each and every time the grimoire is used for a magic purpose."

...But I'm told that mechanism came from Elric! Can anyone please tell how similar the wording is there?

And...

GORE, Dodge or Parry, p.29:

"Each time a Parry or a Dodge is made in a round, there is a cumulative 30% penalty for every subsequent Parry or Dodge. Whichever skill is used first is also used as the starting point from which these calculations are made."

Again, the wording in BRP is not an exact match (because, for one thing, it separates the use of Dodge & Parry) but, to me, the figure of "30%" seems a suspiciously close match. Again, I was told (upthread) that comes from Elric!

BRP, Parry (and similar for Dodge), p.191:

"Each successive parry attempt after the first is at a –30% modifier to the skill rating, cumulative. If the chance to parry an attack falls below 1%, your character cannot attempt to parry."

These were just two examples that caught my eye from a casual look-through, the other day after the subject of GORE came up in this thread. Maybe there are other examples. Maybe there aren't. Maybe the wording isn't close enough to be a problem legally. But GORE's source seems apparent and, to me, "dodgy".

[peterb]

OK, here's what leads me to think that way.

GORE, Learning Spells, p35:

"If a character locates a spell from someone else's book, he must be able to read the language to understand it. If the character possess fluency in the language equal to or greater than INT x5, he has no problem reading the text. If the skill level is below INT x5, he must succeed in a Language skill roll in order to read it."

This I found suspiciously similar to the system (although not the exact words) used in BRP...

BRP, p126:

"Your character must be able to read the writing to learn from the grimoire. If your character has a skill rating of less than INT x 5% in the language the grimoire is written in, he or she will have to make a successful Language roll each and every time the grimoire is used for a magic purpose."

...But I'm told that mechanism came from Elric! Can anyone please tell how similar the wording is there?

And...

GORE, Dodge or Parry, p.29:

"Each time a Parry or a Dodge is made in a round, there is a cumulative 30% penalty for every subsequent Parry or Dodge. Whichever skill is used first is also used as the starting point from which these calculations are made."

Again, the wording in BRP is not an exact match (because, for one thing, it separates the use of Dodge & Parry) but, to me, the figure of "30%" seems a suspiciously close match. Again, I was told (upthread) that comes from Elric!

BRP, Parry (and similar for Dodge), p.191:

"Each successive parry attempt after the first is at a –30% modifier to the skill rating, cumulative. If the chance to parry an attack falls below 1%, your character cannot attempt to parry."

These were just two examples that caught my eye from a casual look-through, the other day after the subject of GORE came up in this thread. Maybe there are other examples. Maybe there aren't. Maybe the wording isn't close enough to be a problem legally. But GORE's source seems apparent and, to me, "dodgy".

This is all perfectly legal and OK. The GORE text uses the same mechanics as BRP, but that's OK. The game system used in BRP is not covered by any copyright and the texts are not identical. In fact I doubt that texts in your example are copyright protected here in Europe (exl. the U.K.). They are a bit to trivial IMO.

[frogspawner]

It's a restatement of the MRQ SRD.

The bits of GORE that worry me seem to have come from Elric!. They are not in the MRQ SRD (not the version I've seen, anyway).

[frogspawner]

...the texts are not identical. In fact I doubt that texts in your example are copyright protected here in Europe (exl. the U.K.). They are a bit to trivial IMO.

I know they are not identical. But close. Is the Elric! version even closer? And are there more examples than those I spotted from a 10-minute look-through?

In any case "the Law is an Ass". I doubt it would be right to use GORE.

[peterb]

I know they are not identical. But close. Is the Elric! version even closer? And are there more examples than those I spotted from a 10-minute look-through?

In any case "the Law is an Ass". I doubt it would be right to use GORE.

That's not the point. The point is that game mechanics as such lack copyright protection. Restating game mechanics is OK. It's OK that GORE contains descriptions of game mechanics that is similar to what can be found in Elric! or BRP. There's nothing wrong here.