Post/Author/DateTime	Post
felinoel 02-17-07, 11:50 AM	I wish to make a webcomic about a paladin and his party traveling around and I wish to use a DnD god's symbol on the paladin's armor, and there will be much reference to the god as well as other gods belonging to wizards If I have a disclaimer, would this be ok?
CharlieRock 02-17-07, 11:54 AM	Better PM one of them moderator types. Or zap-mail 'em.
Izodor_Shadowcaster 02-17-07, 11:56 AM	Yes, you better ask one of the moderators, but I do not think it will be a problem as long as you use a disclaimer and do not plan to use them for anything commercial.
felinoel 02-17-07, 12:00 PM	Yes, you better ask one of the moderators, but I do not think it will be a problem as long as you use a disclaimer and do not plan to use them for anything commercial. i doubt i would get commercial, unless it gets popular, which i also doubt, but you never know, i might put my characters on coffee mugs and shirts if it gets popular, but that is a very low chance, should i take the safe side and only use greek gods or something like that? i already am using Baccas, god of wine and partying, for the dwarven cleric :D
Khael 02-17-07, 12:44 PM	My guess is you'd be better off sticking to RL or homebrewed gods, just for security. You don't want to have to change anything on the slim chance it is successful do you...(note: I say slim, not a critism, but because the chances now of it being successful are slim. seven to three years back maybe not so much, but now...) After all, you don't really need to stick to an official god for anything do you? Most things you can do will a D&D paladin are based off it being a paladin not the god he worships. And dwarfen cleric- god of wine is not funny. We get it, dwarves like to drink. It worked the first time or as a nice quirk, worshipping it still goes too far (Let me put it like this, I've read too many webcomics were the dwarven cleric worships the god of booze. Far too many. It's still not funny. In fact the only time I found it funny is GW dwarves, who don't worship as god of booze, but do like to drink. Vast amounts. But since those jokes had the actual drink merely as footnote or character stuff, it was funny, and it worked.) As it is I'm fairly certain you're intending an at least vaguely comical comic from the terms 'paladin and his party' and 'god of wine for the dwarven cleric'. Despite the above though don't take it as a critism of your humour. Its just there have been many D&D joke based webcomics before, so only a certain calibre of joke can be repeated in a new one.
kelvinaw273 02-17-07, 01:53 PM	There are quite a few webcomics (Goblins, D&Dorks etc.) out there using D&D material, so I would think so but asking permission first is probably polite.
Tyler Do'Urden 02-17-07, 02:09 PM	Just do your comic and don't worry about it. It's only a problem if 1) the comic takes off and becomes really popular, 2) you make a significant amount of money from it, and 3) WotC cares. And even if all three of these things come to pass, you can just make slight changes and people will still get what you were talking about.
Solaris 02-17-07, 02:32 PM	Why do people think that a disclaimer allows them to infringe copyright?
ant1ers 02-17-07, 03:24 PM	At some point fair use law enters the equation. For example, it is possible to use copyrighted material in a parody. However, as I am not a lawyer, don't ask me where that point lies. As someone else stated, your best bet is to PM a mod, or to talk it over with someone with much more legal knowledge than I do.
Seeker95 02-17-07, 03:50 PM	Forget asking a moderator. You need to ask a lawyer. (His answer, however, will be "don't do it")
Loki5654 02-17-07, 04:28 PM	Just do your comic and don't worry about it. It's only a problem if 1) the comic takes off and becomes really popular, 2) you make a significant amount of money from it, and 3) WotC cares. And even if all three of these things come to pass, you can just make slight changes and people will still get what you were talking about.That's like saying it's OK to steal as long as 1) You don't steal a lot. 2) You don't steal anything really valuable. and 3) The person you steal from doesn't notice. At some point fair use law enters the equation. For example, it is possible to use copyrighted material in a parody. However, as I am not a lawyer, don't ask me where that point lies. As someone else stated, your best bet is to PM a mod, or to talk it over with someone with much more legal knowledge than I do. Only a Federal Judge can determine Fair Use. WizOs are not Federal Judges, so they can't really help. Forget asking a moderator. You need to ask a lawyer. (His answer, however, will be "don't do it") Bingo. What you have is a legal question, so you need to start by asking a lawyer.
felinoel 02-17-07, 06:49 PM	My guess is you'd be better off sticking to RL or homebrewed gods, just for security. You don't want to have to change anything on the slim chance it is successful do you...(note: I say slim, not a critism, but because the chances now of it being successful are slim. seven to three years back maybe not so much, but now...) After all, you don't really need to stick to an official god for anything do you? Most things you can do will a D&D paladin are based off it being a paladin not the god he worships. And dwarfen cleric- god of wine is not funny. We get it, dwarves like to drink. It worked the first time or as a nice quirk, worshipping it still goes too far (Let me put it like this, I've read too many webcomics were the dwarven cleric worships the god of booze. Far too many. It's still not funny. In fact the only time I found it funny is GW dwarves, who don't worship as god of booze, but do like to drink. Vast amounts. But since those jokes had the actual drink merely as footnote or character stuff, it was funny, and it worked.) As it is I'm fairly certain you're intending an at least vaguely comical comic from the terms 'paladin and his party' and 'god of wine for the dwarven cleric'. Despite the above though don't take it as a critism of your humour. Its just there have been many D&D joke based webcomics before, so only a certain calibre of joke can be repeated in a new one.the paladin of freedom, dwarven cleric of baccas, and kobold monk (another character in the party) were all based off of actual game characters, the rest are slightly based off of characters from my games i have actually played, and the comic is actually targetted towards my gaming group so i am sticking with these guys There are quite a few webcomics (Goblins, D&Dorks etc.) out there using D&D material, so I would think so but asking permission first is probably polite.yea but they don't use gods belonging to wizards Just do your comic and don't worry about it. It's only a problem if 1) the comic takes off and becomes really popular, 2) you make a significant amount of money from it, and 3) WotC cares. And even if all three of these things come to pass, you can just make slight changes and people will still get what you were talking about.meh the symbol on the paladin's armor is annoying, i might as well use a greek god instead Why do people think that a disclaimer allows them to infringe copyright?thats why i asked Forget asking a moderator. You need to ask a lawyer. (His answer, however, will be "don't do it")so i should just use gods of the greek pantheon?
Tyler Do'Urden 02-17-07, 06:54 PM	so i should just use gods of the greek pantheon?You wanna be careful. Greece might sue.
Seeker95 02-17-07, 08:57 PM	You wanna be careful. Greece might sue.Can't. Whoever wrote the Greek Gods into existence died more than 25/50/75 years ago (various laws governing when an author's work comes into public domain.)
Tyler Do'Urden 02-17-07, 09:48 PM	I didn't say they'd sue successfully. People try all sorts of lawsuits that don't work. I read in Uncle John's Bathroom Reader about a dude who tried to sue Satan for ruining his life. It got thrown out because because they couldn't subpoena the devil.
felinoel 02-17-07, 11:34 PM	I didn't say they'd sue successfully. People try all sorts of lawsuits that don't work. I read in Uncle John's Bathroom Reader about a dude who tried to sue Satan for ruining his life. It got thrown out because because they couldn't subpoena the devil.i see, well then i will take my chances with the olympian pantheon which is perfect because i can have my chaotic good paladin follow zeus, who is chaotic good as well
Zherog 02-19-07, 10:19 AM	At some point fair use law enters the equation. For example, it is possible to use copyrighted material in a parody. However, as I am not a lawyer, don't ask me where that point lies. As someone else stated, your best bet is to PM a mod, or to talk it over with someone with much more legal knowledge than I do. Fair use won't come into play, because what the OP is talking about is likely trademark infringement rather than copyright infringement. There is no "fair use" for trademarks. Yes, you better ask one of the moderators, but I do not think it will be a problem as long as you use a disclaimer and do not plan to use them for anything commercial. Why do you think one of the WizOs would be able to help with this problem? They're not lawyers for the company; they moderate the message boards.
Seeker95 02-19-07, 11:43 AM	It got thrown out because because they couldn't subpoena the devil.They put Martha's contact information at the end of every show. :devil:
Giant_Moth 02-19-07, 12:48 PM	Well, there is a lot of webcomics that use D&D material to write their comics about. Goblins, Order of the Stick. Goblins sell a few adds, while Order of The Stick dosn't. Both sells Books of collected material however. I'm not sure the legal things about that, but I think it has something to do with the Open Material of D&D, where they just can't sue people for selling a book with someone "Being a wizard that casts magic missile" I also think it falls under the law of parody as well. However, the usage of Intellectual Material(specific names) is probaly not allowed, as specific deiteis.
darkneolink 02-19-07, 01:02 PM	I got this disclaimer from Captain snes the webcomic Final Fantasy IV, Final Fantasy VI and Chrono Trigger are registered trademarks of Square. The Legend of Zelda is a registered trademark of Nintendo of America. Images reproduced for entertainment purposes only, and are protected under the the Fair Use Rule of the United States Copyright Act of 1976. I read that on the bottom of 8-Bit theatre, and that guy sounds like he knows what he's talking about. More importantly anyone that tries to sue me will have to face the wrath of my ninjas, who will beat the crap out of anyone or anything I tell them to. Go ahead. Push me punk..... Yeah that's what I thought.. hxxp://www.captainsnes.com just change the "x" for "t"
Escef 02-19-07, 01:21 PM	<snip> Yes, that's pretty much it. You can use anything referenced in the SRD, which is Open Content. However, characters, gods, settings, et al. are trademarked intellectual properties or copyrighted (with active copyrights). Note that some names you might still be able to use anyway, such as Saint Cuthbert (a real person).
PolasKasDorion 02-19-07, 02:45 PM	Most of the D&D gods are taken from various mythologies... including bacchus. So using that idea is fine. Parody is fine too. The only problem I see is that you're wanting to put the D&D symbol of Bacchus on a shield. Now, a funny-looking abstraction of that symbol would probably be fine... but if your webcomic isn't intended to be humorous, or if you're copy-pasting images you're out of line.
ArcTan 02-19-07, 03:41 PM	Fair use won't come into play, because what the OP is talking about is likely trademark infringement rather than copyright infringement. There is no "fair use" for trademarks. This is absolutely incorrect. Although the term "fair use" is not often used for trademarks, the idea of fair use is absolutely essential to what defines a trademark. A trademark only remains a trademark as long as it is provably essential to the identity of a competitor in the marketplace. If someone steals your trademark but uses it in a way that clearly does not violate your brand identity, your suit will be thrown out of court. (See when the heavy metal band Metallica unsuccessfully sued a brand of metallic-colored nail polish also calling themselves Metallica -- the two brands were far enough apart that the court ruled there was no infringement.) In case you weren't aware, the word "aspirin" was once a trademark of the Bayer corporation. Nowadays any company can label their acetylsalicylic acid tablets as "aspirin" without getting sued precisely because the term was used widely enough that, as a matter of practical fact, the term did not specifically apply to Bayer's brand anymore. The same thing happened to "styrofoam". And is in the process of happening to "Xerox" and "Kleenex". I'm allowed to *use* a company's name and trademarks as much as I want. It's ludicrous to claim that I couldn't write a novel without mentioning the brand of sneakers the character is wearing, or the make and model of car he's driving, or the name of the restaurant he's eating at. The *only time* a company can sue me for using their trademark is if I'm using it in such a way that it creates confusion about their brand identity -- if I make my own set of shoes that have the Nike swoosh on them, or, possibly, if I write a book that's about Nike shoes that creates confusion that it might be an ad created by the Nike company. In this case, using D&D created symbols and icons in a webcomic *might* create the impression that the webcomic is a WotC creation. A disclaimer clearly stating that it isn't should be enough to ward off such confusion, though, and if such confusion doesn't exist then the company's basis for a lawsuit doesn't exist. The only problem you might run into is *not* a trademark issue but a copyright issue -- if the use of D&D gods is a substantial enough use of copyrighted work from D&D as to make your webcomic constitute a "derivative work". The line here is subjective, but to simply use an image from D&D should not be enough to make your work a "sequel' to D&D or a "D&D book". Why do you think one of the WizOs would be able to help with this problem? They're not lawyers for the company; they moderate the message boards. That doesn't mean they don't have some common sense about copyright issues. Honestly, you want to ask a lawyer, period, not a lawyer for the company. A lawyer for the company is biased toward the company's interests. Companies have been pretty successful recently in convincing people they don't have rights that the law very clearly gives them by scaring them with threats and lawyers giving them phone calls threatening all kinds of things they'd never get away with in court. By caving into such things rather than resisting and doing your own research, you help further the cause of weakening what rights consumers do still have regarding IP.
ArcTan 02-19-07, 03:51 PM	That's like saying it's OK to steal as long as 1) You don't steal a lot. 2) You don't steal anything really valuable. and 3) The person you steal from doesn't notice. More or less. And most people are actually okay with this definition. Most people, for instance, do not call the cops to put you in jail for trespassing because you stepped on their yard while walking down the sidewalk. Only a Federal Judge can determine Fair Use. WizOs are not Federal Judges, so they can't really help. This is nonsense. Yes, once something actually gets to court, it's up to the judge how he's going to rule. That doesn't mean there isn't a real, sensible definition you can go by. A law that has no meaning until it lands in the hands of a judge is a useless law. Fair use has a real, sensible definition. In this case, referencing a trademark or visual image created by someone else in your own work -- quotation -- is *very much* a protected, fair use of IP that is essential to how art, cinema, literature and so on have functioned for the past few decades. I can take a picture of the Nike swoosh on someone's shoe without paying Nike anything, I can make a movie that shows the inside of a Hilton hotel without paying Hilton anything, and I can sure as hell show people playing D&D without paying WotC one red cent. Bingo. What you have is a legal question, so you need to start by asking a lawyer. Lawyers will tell you different things, because frankly CYA is becoming an increasing part of our culture. And if you're a real wuss about these things and/or just don't have the time or energy to get sued at all, you'd call WotC and ask permission before you even write the words "Dungeons and Dragons" in your diary. But anyone who says you ought to get in legal trouble for using a symbol from a D&D book in your own webcomic is simply wrong. They're following an understandable strategy -- kowtowing to the rights-holder by default so they won't run into any trouble at all, ever -- but they're still wrong.
ArcTan 02-19-07, 03:54 PM	Why do people think that a disclaimer allows them to infringe copyright? Why do people think that ever referencing or using someone else's work constitutes copyright infringement? Oh, right. Decades of cheap terror tactics by well-paid corporate lawyers who are managing to erode rights artists used to always take for granted without ever actually having to bring anything up in Congress. I'd almost forgotten.
Ranger REG 02-20-07, 02:39 AM	Why do people think that ever referencing or using someone else's work constitutes copyright infringement? Oh, right. Decades of cheap terror tactics by well-paid corporate lawyers who are managing to erode rights artists used to always take for granted without ever actually having to bring anything up in Congress. I'd almost forgotten. *Shrugs.* If you don't show any vigilant gesture to protect your trademarks, you could easily lose it. That's the drawback for owning an IP that has no expiration date, as opposed to the others (i.e., copyrights and patents). Personally, I'd like to see more court precedents to define IP law, if the violators (either deliberate or accidental) stop chickening out because of lack of fund. After all, if you have the moxie to use someone else's stuff, you might as well have the cojones and money to fight in court. :evillaugh :devil:
Loki5654 02-20-07, 03:07 AM	More or less. And most people are actually okay with this definition. Most people, for instance, do not call the cops to put you in jail for trespassing because you stepped on their yard while walking down the sidewalk. Most people don't, but they could if they wanted. The law would be on their side. You are saying "Everyone gets away with it all the time." I'm saying "That doesn't mean it's right or legal." This is nonsense. Yes, once something actually gets to court, it's up to the judge how he's going to rule. That doesn't mean there isn't a real, sensible definition you can go by. A law that has no meaning until it lands in the hands of a judge is a useless law. Nonsense? No. A legal fact? Yes. According to US law, the only people who can definitively decide whether or not something is Fair Use are Federal Judges. Just because you think your definition of Fair Use is sensible doesn't mean everyone else does. Especially not the copyright holders. Fair use has a real, sensible definition. In this case, referencing a trademark or visual image created by someone else in your own work -- quotation -- is *very much* a protected, fair use of IP that is essential to how art, cinema, literature and so on have functioned for the past few decades. I can take a picture of the Nike swoosh on someone's shoe without paying Nike anything, I can make a movie that shows the inside of a Hilton hotel without paying Hilton anything, and I can sure as hell show people playing D&D without paying WotC one red cent. Maybe, maybe not. All I'm saying is that only a Federal Judge can make that decision. Since I'm not a Federal Judge (and I'm fairly certain you aren't either) I err on the side of caution and advise people to consult legal counsel before taking the leap. Lawyers will tell you different things, because frankly CYA is becoming an increasing part of our culture. And if you're a real wuss about these things and/or just don't have the time or energy to get sued at all, you'd call WotC and ask permission before you even write the words "Dungeons and Dragons" in your diary. 1. You are basing your argument of your opinion of the legal system. Your opinion has some merit, but is by no means 100% correct. 2. The "diary" comment is taking things to an absurdist extreme. After all, there is a difference between a private journal and a published work. But anyone who says you ought to get in legal trouble for using a symbol from a D&D book in your own webcomic is simply wrong. They're following an understandable strategy -- kowtowing to the rights-holder by default so they won't run into any trouble at all, ever -- but they're still wrong.Again, this is just your opinion of the system. Not everyone feels that way. If I held the copyright to something that generated income (income that I and my family would depend upon), I know I'd want the legal system to reasonably protect me. Wizards' copyrights generate revenue for their company. That revenue pays their salaries. It pays their rents and feeds their kids. That should be protected. Even if it weren't protected under the law, it should be respected.
Solaris 02-20-07, 04:46 AM	Why do people think that ever referencing or using someone else's work constitutes copyright infringement?If you're responding to me, I don't think that. I was referring to the types of disclaimer that the original poster mentioned. For examples, here are a couple I just found on google: "Although the use of these concepts, rules, etc., is unauthorized, no infringement is intended. References to Dungeons & Dragons, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, Forgotten Realms, Mystara, and Greyhawk are provided as an aid for players and is in not intended to be a substitute for, or a challenge to the Copyright of the original material." "Comic characters trademark and/or copyright their respective owners. Their presentation here is not meant as a challenge to those trademarks and copyrights." Regardless of what they "meant" or "intended", if in fact they do turn out to be infringing, these silly disclaimers are irrelevant. If you're not infringing, then no disclaimer is needed; if you are, then a disclaimer is useless. Yet many people seem to think they afford some legal protection. That was my only point.
Ranger REG 02-20-07, 09:48 PM	If you're responding to me, I don't think that. I was referring to the types of disclaimer that the original poster mentioned. For examples, here are a couple I just found on google: "Although the use of these concepts, rules, etc., is unauthorized, no infringement is intended. References to Dungeons & Dragons, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, Forgotten Realms, Mystara, and Greyhawk are provided as an aid for players and is in not intended to be a substitute for, or a challenge to the Copyright of the original material." "Comic characters trademark and/or copyright their respective owners. Their presentation here is not meant as a challenge to those trademarks and copyrights." Regardless of what they "meant" or "intended", if in fact they do turn out to be infringing, these silly disclaimers are irrelevant. If you're not infringing, then no disclaimer is needed; if you are, then a disclaimer is useless. Yet many people seem to think they afford some legal protection. That was my only point. To be honest with you, disclaimer is more like an appeal to IP owners that they meant no disrespect. It does not give you safe harbor. So, if the IP owners to tell you to remove the material they find offensive or infringing, your disclaimer pretty much say that you will comply (as a mean of respect).
TheDarkLord 02-20-07, 10:02 PM	They put Martha's contact information at the end of every show. :devil: Watch it now..:smirk: Some of us in the business world think Martha got royally screwed. Still funny though, she's definatly a :censored:.
Loki5654 02-21-07, 02:01 AM	To be honest with you, disclaimer is more like an appeal to IP owners that they meant no disrespect. It does not give you safe harbor. So, if the IP owners to tell you to remove the material they find offensive or infringing, your disclaimer pretty much say that you will comply (as a mean of respect). If they truly meant no disrespect, why were they stealing it in the first place? No, what these "disclaimers" are really saying is "I've stolen this, but if I'm caught I plan to say I'm sorry and give it back." Sounds like a five-year-old's logic. You took the cookie. You ate the cookie. There is no "I didn't mean to" or "I didn't think you'd be mad". Let's be adults. Either 1) don't take stuff that doesn't belong to you or (if you can't do that) 2) Own up to what you've done and take your punishment like an adult.
Seeker95 02-21-07, 09:24 AM	If they truly meant no disrespect, why were they stealing it in the first place?Over on one of my favorite fan-art boards, there are plenty of people drawing X-Men characters. The name and likeness of every X-Man (or X-Woman) is owned wholly and completely by Marvel Comics. You are not allowed to draw them for public distribution -- free or otherwise. So when a fan of Wolverine decides to draw Wolverine and ask others "whaddaya think?" s/he is violating the copyright and trademark that Marvel has on that character. They put the disclaimer. I doubt anyone would reasonably call what they are doing "stealing". Marvel doesn't sue the artist or the hosting site. But they could*. Creating a fan-site for D&D is not usually a malicious endeavor. There are many of them. And most of them include material that is in violation of copyright and trademark law. WotC (and every other license owner) reserves the right to sue. Placing the disclaimer is the way most fan-site owners acknowledge up front that they are aware that they are in violation, and that if the license owner requests removal, they will comply. However, the disclaimer in no way protects them from legal actions. * If one of the artists actually lands a job at Marvel (and this has happened), then that artist is asked by Marvel to remove all Marvel-owned properties from the site. They are also asked to remove all other licensed properties (usually DC-owned, but often also Image and other comic groups) because as a Marvel employee, those now-hired artists can still be sued by the other company. And if you're going to sue an artist, you probably wanna sue the rival company that employs them.
Ranger REG 02-22-07, 02:04 AM	If they truly meant no disrespect, why were they stealing it in the first place? Because they mean to "borrow" it. ;) Trust me, I know they're not in the right, but that's how they think. Then there are others who blatantly reject the IP law, thinking that intellectual property is not a property at all. They're based on ideas -- which cannot be copyrighted -- therefore they're ideas themselves, or so they believe.
Yakiniku 02-22-07, 03:27 AM	Wizards of the Coast recognizes that the vitality of the D&D game comes from the ability of its fan base to contribute to its growth and development. That's why it created the OGC. WoTC has nothing to gain by taking legal action against someone with a derivative work, unless it causes them financial damages (e.g. reprinting non-OGC rules), or they don't want to be associated with it (e.g. "The Book of Erotic Fantasy.") Furthermore, creators of derivative works are rarely sued for money. Usually it's just a cease and desist. That said, just because you could probably get away with it doesn't mean it's okay. If you have the energy and creativity to create an entire comic, then how hard should it be to create original deities? All you really have to do is change their names and symbols. And if you're a real wuss about these things and/or just don't have the time or energy to get sued at all, you'd call WotC and ask permission before you even write the words "Dungeons and Dragons" in your diary. I'm pretty sure this falls within Fair Use.
a_psh 02-22-07, 07:27 AM	Actually, the OGL doesn't permit you to do anything that you couldn't do already, more or less (except maybe the thing about using the actual "d20" logo itself). You can't stop me from making a D&D-compatible product any more than you can stop me for selling generic-brand tape that's sized to fit into a Scoth Tape tape dispenser. The DMCA does muddy the waters a bit here, but that's still the general way the law works. The point of the OGL is to actively encourage people to make cross-compatible products, and to get them to do so under an agreement that protects certain "core content." Like mind flayers or the experience chart.
Zherog 02-22-07, 11:06 AM	Actually, the OGL doesn't permit you to do anything that you couldn't do already, more or less (except maybe the thing about using the actual "d20" logo itself). Use of the d20 logo is a separate and distinct license from the OGL.
a_psh 02-22-07, 11:29 AM	Use of the d20 logo is a separate and distinct license from the OGL.Hmm, so the OGL doesn't actually give you any rights you don't already have. It's just an agreement that WotC will play nice if you play nice, too.
Arrowhen 02-22-07, 11:45 AM	Actually, the OGL doesn't permit you to do anything that you couldn't do already, more or less (except maybe the thing about using the actual "d20" logo itself). You can't stop me from making a D&D-compatible product any more than you can stop me for selling generic-brand tape that's sized to fit into a Scoth Tape tape dispenser. You could be stopped if your D&D-compatible product was a derivative work. What the OGL does is specifically grant you permission to create derivative material of open game content, permission which you wouldn't normally have under standard copyright.
boozerker 02-22-07, 04:22 PM	That's like saying it's OK to steal as long as 1) You don't steal a lot. 2) You don't steal anything really valuable. and 3) The person you steal from doesn't notice. Taxpayers pay for the system which protects ownership of a product, which in turn lets companies gain lots of money muscle. But it also lets a few of those companies abuse that system, giving them tons of $$ to wield against small, individual taxpayers. Like the companies which have gained patents for 1. living organisms 2. the building blocks of life and 3. things which have existed since the dawn of life. A company has trademarked a cypress tree, and if you snap a photo of it you can be sued for publishing it. _ Another company sells genetically tweaked seeds, and if you re-use any from your harvest (instead of buying new seeds), off to court you'll go -- for stealing. And if seeds blow over in the wind onto your land, you could end up paying a technology fee (per acre). Borrowing seeds from your neighbor is also illegal. _ Companies kept patenting human genes, until scientists thwarted the practice -- by deliberately mapping out every possible combination of genes, and releasing those publicly. It's known as the Human Genome Project and part of its goal had been to protect human genes from such exclusive ownership. Point: if you must label fair use as "stealing", then hopefully you also have a label for the other end, where twisting the legal system to a company's benefit is a multi-million dollar research project? ;) Fair use might not seem fair, but it's an essential part of the system. Businesses and entrepreneurs use the public libraries (esp. the library of Congress), transport routes, economy infrastructures, and can flourish when there's a safe environment to operate in. That system is all paid for by taxpayers. And when businesses get tax breaks, guess who foots the bill (for the costs of maintaining a society)? A little fair use hopefully isn't too much to ask. Those companies who don't want to repay society make a big fuss and instead pay money into research, lawyers and media to ensure that we believe the following notion. Fair use is likely theft if you haven't gotten official permission However, great minds have taught us that business profit is a two-way street. One of them is the Water American (http://www.historynet.com/exploration/science_engineering/3036996.html), who claimed of his inventions, "I never made, nor proposed to make, the least profit by any of them." No invention or work is ever made in a vacuum. You earn, but you also contribute -- just as the work and ideas of others contribute to contemporary business opportunities. That's what fair use is about. Many things we take for granted would be severely lacking without it. /little rant :tiphat:
boozerker 02-22-07, 04:25 PM	What you have is a legal question, so you need to start by asking a lawyer. Who can afford to hire a lawyer just to make comic at no profit, a comic which doesn't hurt the sales of whatever company's product it's paying tribute to? And if the comic does hurt a product's sales, that's what the laws protecting a company are there for -- not to strongarm whoever's artistic talents are suggestive of a product.
Bruunwald 02-22-07, 04:32 PM	You can't use names without permission, at least not intentionally and with the same character and profile. But you can use certain symbols. For instance, there are plenty of sun gods in real history/mythology, and the sun with a face in it is a part of that history and has been around in illustrations and decorations for millenia. That's all in the public domain. Thus, you could have a sun god using the symbol of a sun with a face on it, and as long as it bore more relation to Apollo than to Pelor, nobody could say anything about it. Likewise, nobody has the market cornered on scary chick goddesses, one-eyed gods or gods dedicated to war. Concepts in general, cannot be copyrighted. Additionally, you are protected constitutionally if your work is a satire. Mad Magazine, for instance, takes movies and changes the names and places around, but keeps the general theme of a work, to make fun of it and point out its flaws and inherent silliness. Thus, you could mock a copyrighted term like Mind-Flayer, instead calling the creatures Mind-Filleters, and get away with it, so long as some commentary was being made in the process.
Loki5654 02-22-07, 04:34 PM	retracted.
boozerker 02-22-07, 05:03 PM	*Fast actin* retractin that's probably in violation some IP law :P :tiphat:
Loki5654 02-22-07, 05:11 PM	retracted.
boozerker 02-22-07, 05:45 PM	OK, fixed. You're correct, that did seem intended directly at you. Such is not the case. Next time I just won't use a poster's words if the context is negative -- it's too open to misinterpretation. :cool: I salute you though, for remaining civil even when my intentions seemed offensive. Take care
Loki5654 02-22-07, 05:52 PM	Who can afford to hire a lawyer just to make comic at no profit, a comic which doesn't hurt the sales of whatever company's product it's paying tribute to? And if the comic does hurt a product's sales, that's what the laws protecting a company are there for -- not to strongarm whoever's artistic talents are suggestive of a product.All I meant by that statement was: If you want to know how to grow corn, ask a corn farmer. If you want to learn to fly a plane, ask a pilot. If you have a legal question, ask a lawyer. None of us here are lawyers (rules-lawyers, maybe) so asking us is pointless. Our answers are only opinions made without thourough study of the laws in question.
Zherog 02-22-07, 09:02 PM	A company has trademarked a cypress tree, and if you snap a photo of it you can be sued for publishing it. _ Another company sells genetically tweaked seeds, and if you re-use any from your harvest (instead of buying new seeds), off to court you'll go -- for stealing. And if seeds blow over in the wind onto your land, you could end up paying a technology fee (per acre). Borrowing seeds from your neighbor is also illegal. Those have the feel of urban legend to me. Have a source link? Who can afford to hire a lawyer just to make comic at no profit, a comic which doesn't hurt the sales of whatever company's product it's paying tribute to? And if the comic does hurt a product's sales, that's what the laws protecting a company are there for -- not to strongarm whoever's artistic talents are suggestive of a product. Order of the Stick started entirely as a way for Rich to amuse his friends with something on his website. Rich fully intended for the site to be a gaming site, with the comic as something of an afterthought. I think just about everybody knows how that turned out. :)
TheDarkLord 02-22-07, 09:17 PM	A company has trademarked a cypress tree, and if you snap a photo of it you can be sued for publishing it. Pebble Beach trademarked a Lone Cypress tree. At one point it was on ESPN's website about you cannot sell or trade items that have a single Cypress tree on them. Check with Pebble beach for all the facts. Another company sells genetically tweaked seeds, and if you re-use any from your harvest (instead of buying new seeds), off to court you'll go -- for stealing. And if seeds blow over in the wind onto your land, you could end up paying a technology fee (per acre). Borrowing seeds from your neighbor is also illegal. This one, though I can't find the source at the moment, I know is true. Genetically altered seeds are treated as Top-Secret, high-priority, company investments. They had a big thing about this during an Agricultural seminar during my college years (I sat in on it and taped it because my dad asked me too, I have no desire to be an Agriculturalist or whatever). If you use a Genetically altered seed, then take the seeds from that plant to grow more plants, you are in some kind of trademark violation. You might want to check with the US Agricultural services for exact details.
boozerker 02-22-07, 09:42 PM	Those have the feel of urban legend to me. Have a source link? I rarely keep sources handy, but the engineered seeds article is from a Consumer Reports article. Below are some links I've found though: The company dealing with Brazilian illicit seed planting (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2003-08-13-brazil-gmo-seeds_x.htm) ...wants the seeds legalized to recoup lost profits from widespread illicit use in Brazil of its...soybean seeds. Company legally battles with Canadian farmer (http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html) (who then sues for contamination of his field) That one's full of legal-speak, but scroll down to the quoted text below. The heart of the issue is whether the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision can stand in light of this Court’s ruling that plants as higher life forms are unpatentable Or go to this (http://www.biotech-info.net/Farmer_v_Monsanto.html) website which explains the case in plain english. As for the cypress tree, here (http://www.photoattorney.com/2005_04_01_photoattorney_archive.html)'s some info, look for the quoted text below. Nevertheless, some companies have tried to prevent the use - both commercially and editorially - of photographs of their buildings or objects via trademark protection or contract law. Examples include the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, the lone Cypress tree at Pebble Beach, CA, and the "Hollywood" sign. Another link here (http://www.ict4lt.org/en/en_copyright.htm), look for the quoted text under "The Lone Cypress". You can use photos of the tree for private non-commercial purposes but you cannot use photos that you take of the tree in promotional materials, e.g. on the cover of a new travel guide that you have written, because Pebble Beach Golf Club has grabbed the tree as a trademark
boozerker 02-22-07, 09:47 PM	Rich fully intended for the site to be a gaming site, with the comic as something of an afterthought. I think just about everybody knows how that turned out. :) :D That's great
ArcTan 02-22-07, 09:49 PM	*Shrugs.* If you don't show any vigilant gesture to protect your trademarks, you could easily lose it. That's the drawback for owning an IP that has no expiration date, as opposed to the others (i.e., copyrights and patents). Yes. What I'm referring to is *not* aggressive policing of genuine trademark violations, but obviously false IP claims that companies bring out because they know the case will never be taken to court, because most people can't afford a lawsuit. (I.e. attacking someone for use that's clearly protected as parody or as quotation for a critical purpose. See the whole "Internet vs. Scientology" thing.) Personally, I'd like to see more court precedents to define IP law, if the violators (either deliberate or accidental) stop chickening out because of lack of fund. After all, if you have the moxie to use someone else's stuff, you might as well have the cojones and money to fight in court. Yeah, except often people incur such lawsuits by accident, not because of any particular "moxie" but because they do things they don't realize are illegal (often things that *aren't*, in fact, illegal) that step on corporations' toes.
ArcTan 02-22-07, 10:02 PM	Most people don't, but they could if they wanted. The law would be on their side. You are saying "Everyone gets away with it all the time." I'm saying "That doesn't mean it's right or legal." It means that the law is ill-defined and that most people aren't familiar with the jurisprudence, actually. In point of fact, if I were to step onto someone's yard while walking down the sidewalk and then step off again, court precedent doesn't actually allow someone to run out and beat me with a stick for trespassing. The simplistic interpretation of the law ("This is my land and I can do whatever I want on it") is not, in fact, the correct one, because common sense does exist in the legal system -- it's just often buried in the minutiae of statutes and judicial precedent. Nonsense? No. A legal fact? Yes. According to US law, the only people who can definitively decide whether or not something is Fair Use are Federal Judges. Just because you think your definition of Fair Use is sensible doesn't mean everyone else does. Especially not the copyright holders. According to the US legal system, the only person who can definitively decide whether I murdered somebody or not is a jury selected from my peers. That doesn't mean that there's no actual, objective truth in a murder case about whether someone murdered someone or not. The jury doesn't have the power to decide the definition of murder or rewrite history to determine whether I did it or not. They might be able to do so by making an obviously wrong decision, but their job is supposed to be to make the right one. Just as a federal judge is supposed to make a decision about a fair use case that conforms to the statute and to prior judicial precedence. Sure, it's ultimately his decision, but he's not allowed to *invent* a definition of fair use when he does so. Judges are judges, not lawmakers, and that's a very important distinction to remember (and one people too often forget). If a judge comes up with a new and innovative idea of fair use that excludes the idea of any kind of fair quotation, that judge is just as wrong as if a jury decides I didn't actually murder the guy because I'm white and he's black and white people can't be guilty of murdering black people. Maybe, maybe not. All I'm saying is that only a Federal Judge can make that decision. Since I'm not a Federal Judge (and I'm fairly certain you aren't either) I err on the side of caution and advise people to consult legal counsel before taking the leap. If you want to be extra cautious in our litigious age, sure. I can also, however, express my opinion that people choosing to do this en masse is one reason people's rights as far as IP goes have been eroding more and more as time goes on. 1. You are basing your argument of your opinion of the legal system. Your opinion has some merit, but is by no means 100% correct. Maybe not, but you know what, I have a fair idea of what's legal and what's not, and I'm not a fan of people covering their asses to the extent that they lose what rights the law currently gives them. It may be riskier to demand to see a lawyer when a cop arrests you rather than simply doing everything the cop tells you to do, but the former is closer to how the legal system is supposed to work, and if everyone did it then there would be fewer abuses of the law by cops. I think the same basic principle applies here. 2. The "diary" comment is taking things to an absurdist extreme. After all, there is a difference between a private journal and a published work. Yeah, and in the realm of intellectual property, it's a blurry one. In theory there actually isn't -- regardless of the scale on which I do so, creating a derivative work of a copyrighted work infringes on copyright, even if it's in my diary. This is around the same as shooting someone for stepping onto my yard from the sidewalk, but that's what you get when you try to interpret the law as conservatively as possible. Again, this is just your opinion of the system. Not everyone feels that way. My opinion that people respecting rights IP holders are not given by the law is a bad thing for creativity, innovation and ultimately any IP market itself may just be my opinion. The fact that people are increasingly respecting rights IP holders are not given by the law, however, is not just my opinion. It is a fact. Wishing the law gave you more power than you actually have, and being able to convince other people the law gives you more power than you actually have, doesn't actually change the substance of the law. Nor (in my opinion) should it. If I held the copyright to something that generated income (income that I and my family would depend upon), I know I'd want the legal system to reasonably protect me. You might even want it to give you more protections than the copyright statutes created by Congress actually gave you. You might want to sue people who were legitimately parodying your work, or quoting it as a reference without creating a truly derivative work from it, or quoting it critically in order to comment upon it. You might seek to leverage your power, your staff of lawyers, and so on to not only protect your work from being directly infringed upon but to keep anyone from using it, criticizing it or casting it in a bad light. This would be perfectly understandable on your part, especially if you were a corporation and not a human being. It would not, however, actually be in accordance with the law. Wizards' copyrights generate revenue for their company. That revenue pays their salaries. It pays their rents and feeds their kids. That should be protected. Even if it weren't protected under the law, it should be respected. Their actual copyrights are protected by the law. Extending IP protection way beyond what their actual copyrights consist of, however, is *not* protected by the law, and I do not respect attempts to do so.
ArcTan 02-22-07, 10:07 PM	If you're responding to me, I don't think that. I was referring to the types of disclaimer that the original poster mentioned. For examples, here are a couple I just found on google: "Although the use of these concepts, rules, etc., is unauthorized, no infringement is intended. References to Dungeons & Dragons, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, Forgotten Realms, Mystara, and Greyhawk are provided as an aid for players and is in not intended to be a substitute for, or a challenge to the Copyright of the original material." "Comic characters trademark and/or copyright their respective owners. Their presentation here is not meant as a challenge to those trademarks and copyrights." Regardless of what they "meant" or "intended", if in fact they do turn out to be infringing, these silly disclaimers are irrelevant. If you're not infringing, then no disclaimer is needed; if you are, then a disclaimer is useless. Yet many people seem to think they afford some legal protection. That was my only point. Not necessarily true. In trademark law, for instance, the *only* power a trademark holder has is to protect their brand from dilution or confusion. The only leverage they have against you is if they can prove that your using their trademark is misleading people into thinking you're affiliated with them and that your product is their product. A clear disclaimer, in such cases, immediately deflates any such claim. (And using trademarks *with* such disclaimers is de rigeur when you're using trademarks to talk about or represent someone in an objective or critical context. It's *expected* that I'll use the term "Wizards of the Coast" to describe the company Wizards of the Coast when I'm, say, writing a message board post, even though that name is their trademark. I'm okay as long as I don't say anything to imply that I work for Wizards of the Coast when I do so.) In a case of a true derivative work, of course, a derivative work is infringement regardless of any disclaimer. On the other hand, there's plenty of gray area -- remember that parody is protected, and parody is often hard to define. (Plenty of people think of Order of the Stick as a "serious story" as well as a satire of D&D conventions, after all.) Thus, a disclaimer that's existed on the product since it was created clearly defining it as a parody will help swing the judge your way in one of those gray area cases. (I recall something like this was part of the compromise with The Wind Done Gone.)
ArcTan 02-22-07, 10:08 PM	I'm pretty sure this falls within Fair Use. Yeah, but apparently I have to check first in case a federal judge disagrees.
ArcTan 02-22-07, 10:18 PM	Because they mean to "borrow" it. ;) Trust me, I know they're not in the right, but that's how they think. Then there are others who blatantly reject the IP law, thinking that intellectual property is not a property at all. They're based on ideas -- which cannot be copyrighted -- therefore they're ideas themselves, or so they believe. Which is, you know, true. All matters of opinion aside, intellectual property is *not* the same as real property under the law, and the laws covering copyright infringement are *not* the same as the laws covering theft. Completely different sections of the law, completely different means of enforcement and penalties, completely different sets of stipulations. If you're going to claim that, legally, stealing a passage from a book is like stealing a bicycle, you'll have to contend with the fact that there is no such thing as "fair use" of your bicycle that I can use without fear of legal repercussions -- that I don't have the protected right, for example, to use your bicycle as long as I'm using it to make fun of your bicycle rather than ride your bicycle in a serious manner, I don't have the right to ride your bicycle for very short distances in order to show you what's wrong with your bicycle, and I don't have the right to just take your bicycle out for a spin every once in a while to make a point or a joke or an analogy. (Random example: WotC didn't have to pay DC Comics anything to point out that Batman is an example of a Lawful Good Scoundrel.) Moreover, once you own your bike you own it forever. When you die, you can give it to your daughter and she can give it to her daughter and so on for all eternity. Whereas the law says you have to give up control of a copyright after a finite period of time -- sure, an ever-expanding one under recent statutes, but the law is still clear that the time has to be *finite*. In other words, the law doesn't think copyright is property either. If you actually read the Constitution, copyright pretty much exists "for the promotion of Science and the useful Arts" -- i.e. it's an artificial system designed to create incentives for creators, but is not regarded as "natural" the way the Founders regarded the right to holding land as natural (or else you'd be able to hold copyright in perpetuity the way you did land). You may, of course, disagree with all this. You may want to *abolish* these laws and make it so a copyright lasts forever as long as your estate has the lawyers to enforce it and fair use doesn't exist. You could try, and then you'd end up with immense, impossible legal tangles that would be unsolvable, since as time went on it'd be more and more impossible to create anything new that didn't step on some existing copyright somewhere, and the absurdity of saying that any intellectual idea can belong to any particular person in perpetuity would become obvious. (If Tolkien could've enforced a copyright on the idea of orcs, D&D wouldn't have them. If the unnamed writer of Beowulf could've enforced a copyright on the idea of orcneas, Lord of the Rings wouldn't have orcs.)
ArcTan 02-22-07, 10:22 PM	All I meant by that statement was: If you want to know how to grow corn, ask a corn farmer. If you want to learn to fly a plane, ask a pilot. If you have a legal question, ask a lawyer. None of us here are lawyers (rules-lawyers, maybe) so asking us is pointless. Our answers are only opinions made without thourough study of the laws in question. I beg to differ. I'm not a lawyer, nor even in law school, but I was in an activist group in college that was specifically about IP reform, and yes, I have made a pretty thorough layman's review of the laws in question. Two of my friends in college, in fact, were involved in a relatively high-profile lawsuit involving precisely this kind of issue and won. (Oh, hell, I'll link to it so you know I'm not BSing you: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/taxonomy/term/108) Yeah, if you're actually going to go to court and try to sue somebody or defend against a suit, get a real lawyer. But frankly, if you just want to make the damn webcomic and you're not going to do anything to directly challenge WotC over it, I say go for it. I may have a biased opinion, but it's my opinion -- about what *does* happen rather than what *should* -- that even the most draconian and evil corporation (which WotC generally isn't) wouldn't go after you over using a few symbols. Big Hollywood films and TV shows use symbols from rival properties as a form of quotation *all the time*. Don't go lifting huge portions of text from Deities and Demigods, calling them your own, or advertising your webcomic as an "official" D&D webcomic that officially takes place in the Forgotten Realms, and you'll be fine.
mearrin69 02-22-07, 10:25 PM	Oh, my goodness. Such a conflagaration over such a small question. Do like they do on Cops (or other 'reality' shows)...just pretend that you've fuzzed over the logo and *bleep* all references to TRADEMARK. Then, at least, it'll be part of the joke. Or you could just do what TSR did when it created D&D in the first place - use a bunch of everyone else's intellectual property and ideas and just change the names so no one really has a legal claim against you. Somewhere I believe I have a book where halflings are actually called hobbits and (if I'm remembering THAT incorrectly) I am absolutely sure that it refers to three 'species' of halflings/hobbits: hairfoots, tallfellows, and whatnot. Then, of course, there's the Games Workshop method...take it, change it, and then aggressively defend the ideas as your own... Whatever... M
Solaris 02-22-07, 11:54 PM	Those have the feel of urban legend to me. Have a source link?http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/service155.htm
Yakiniku 02-23-07, 01:21 AM	Hmm, so the OGL doesn't actually give you any rights you don't already have. It's just an agreement that WotC will play nice if you play nice, too. It permits you to use and reprint Open Gaming Content as long as you clearly identify it as such. That includes the basic rules--anything in the SRD. It explicitly excludes anything identified as Product Identity. "Product Identity" means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content.
Loki5654 02-23-07, 02:52 AM	...and you'll be fine. This illustrates the crux of my point. After they've taken all this advice you've given them, what if they turn out not to be fine? What, then, is their recourse? "Some guy on teh internetz sed I'd be fine!" But if they'd talked to a lawyer, they'd have avenues of recourse. Its all well and good to sit back and say "Trust me, I know about these things." knowing that if it doesn't work out for them it has absolutely for consequence to you at all. If they talk to a lawyer then they have someone who can be held accountable for the advice they are given.
Solaris 02-23-07, 03:01 AM	If they talk to a lawyer then they have someone who can be held accountable for the advice they are given. If they talk to a lawyer, they'll be able to base their decisions on facts and educated opinions instead of amateur speculation. That's why they should talk to a lawyer -- one should no more seek legal advice here than they would medical advice. Your answer, on the other hand, is why we have ever more and more of the worst kind of lawyer. Someone must be to blame! I'll make them pay!
Loki5654 02-23-07, 03:08 AM	Your answer, on the other hand, is why we have ever more and more of the worst kind of lawyer. Someone must be to blame! I'll make them pay! But our answers are the same. Lawyers have to graduate law school and pass bar exams before they are allowed to practice law. That way the public is assured that when they ask a lawyer for legal counsel, they are asking someone who actually studied law. I certainly didn't mean it in the sense of "I didn't do nothin' wrong, my lawyer just sucked". I still believe people have to be held accountable for their own actions, they can't just claim they had a bad lawyer. But thanks for supporting my point.
ArcTan 02-23-07, 03:24 AM	If they talk to a lawyer, they'll be able to base their decisions on facts and educated opinions instead of amateur speculation. That's why they should talk to a lawyer -- one should no more seek legal advice here than they would medical advice. Your answer, on the other hand, is why we have ever more and more of the worst kind of lawyer. Someone must be to blame! I'll make them pay! Yeah, okay, seriously, if you end up going to court or thinking you might, get a lawyer. If you're *really* worried about it, get a lawyer. And then come back here and call me an idiot if they disagree with me, I won't be offended. But seriously, this is akin to the kind of situation where someone posts saying "I shook hands with someone who has AIDS. Does this mean I have AIDS?" I do, in fact, know the answer. I may not be qualified to give legal or medical advice as a professional, but nonetheless there is a correct answer to the question, as well as a whole lot of dangerous misinformation about the question, and I think it's important that people come out and say the truth when they know it. (HIV is not transmissible by casual contact. Quotation in the form of reproducing a single image is not a copyright infringement, and is only a trademark infringement if it creates brand confusion.) Saying that the answer is totally up in the air when it's not is a form of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) and I don't hold with it. Of course if you really want to be absolutely sure you don't have AIDS, see a doctor, but if every time someone said something like this I said "There's no way of knowing for sure; go see a doctor" I'd be helping spread an unnecessary AIDS panic and all the social harms that go with it. And if I said "There's no way of knowing for sure; go ask a lawyer" every time someone had a question about IP, I'd be supporting the wholly unreasonable fears running rampant about IP everywhere that are paralyzing everyone.
ArcTan 02-23-07, 03:30 AM	This illustrates the crux of my point. After they've taken all this advice you've given them, what if they turn out not to be fine? What, then, is their recourse? "Some guy on teh internetz sed I'd be fine!" But if they'd talked to a lawyer, they'd have avenues of recourse. They wouldn't, really, unless they'd actually paid the lawyer money and hired them to be their lawyer, which is an utterly ridiculous outlay to be expecting this guy to make in order to write a stupid webcomic. Its all well and good to sit back and say "Trust me, I know about these things." knowing that if it doesn't work out for them it has absolutely for consequence to you at all. Well, if I were a lawyer, it wouldn't have any consequences for me either. If they talk to a lawyer then they have someone who can be held accountable for the advice they are given. You know what the shocking thing is? Lawyers make mistakes about areas of law that they don't personally deal with. All the time. IP law is big and complex enough that if I were a lawyer and I'd spent most of my time doing something else I'd be quite likely to give you an erroneous answer about it, if you asked me offhand without paying me any money to actually research it. This is what I've heard, time and time again, from random lawyer or law student friends when complaining about being asked things "as a lawyer". The important thing is that you don't have to be a lawyer to read the law and read the literature about it in order to understand how it works. If it really ever does reach the point where this isn't the case, then our legal system will have utterly failed. The point at which you have to pay educated professionals lots of money all the time just to not be a criminal while conducting your daily business is the point at which the system has more bugs than features. Do you retain a lawyer to advise you about traffic law every time you buckle up and drive out on the road? Or are you fairly confident that a layman's understanding of how traffic law works -- speed limits, passing lanes, signalling, etc. -- is enough? It's the same way with IP law, or it ought to be.
Solaris 02-23-07, 03:36 AM	I do, in fact, know the answer. I may not be qualified to give legal or medical advice as a professional, but nonetheless there is a correct answer to the question, as well as a whole lot of dangerous misinformation about the question... Saying that the answer is totally up in the air when it's not is a form of FUD I didn't say the answer was totally up in the air. Yes there is an answer, and yes you may, in fact, know it. But to me, you're just some schmuck on the internet (not to be offensive -- just to illustrate that I don't know you and I have no reason to have faith in your legal advice).
Solaris 02-23-07, 03:37 AM	But thanks for supporting my point. My point was to ask someone who knows. Your point, as you stated it anyway, was asking someone who you can have legal recourse to blame if they mislead you (whether or not that's actually possible in practice). We both agreed that one should ask a lawyer, but that was about it.
ArcTan 02-23-07, 03:53 AM	I didn't say the answer was totally up in the air. Yes there is an answer, and yes you may, in fact, know it. But to me, you're just some schmuck on the internet (not to be offensive -- just to illustrate that I don't know you and I have no reason to have faith in your legal advice). Right, which is why the real answer is to go educate yourself about the law on your own rather than asking Internet schmucks *or* paying a lawyer who bills by the hour. The actual statutes are, after all, publicly available: http://www.copyright.gov/ The real point being that learning this stuff isn't that hard -- even though it is currently more complex than it has any real right to be -- and people really ought to have the confidence to make their own decisions about these things without leaning on a lawyer as a crutch.
Solaris 02-23-07, 03:55 AM	Right, which is why the real answer is to go educate yourself about the law on your own rather than asking Internet schmucks *or* paying a lawyer who bills by the hour. The actual statutes are, after all, publicly available: http://www.copyright.gov/ So are books on anatomy. I assume that you wouldn't want me to perform surgery on you after having read a few.
ArcTan 02-23-07, 04:02 AM	So are books on anatomy. I assume that you wouldn't want me to perform surgery on you after having read a few. No, and I wouldn't expect you to go defend yourself in a courtroom after having read the statutes. I do expect people to know how to prevent the transmission of STDs without having completed their residency, though (just to maintain this analogy). Telling people that they need to consult with a doctor every time they have sex to make sure they don't get AIDS would be creating an inappropriate level of fear and uncertainty, probably aimed at getting people to have less sex. Getting people so scared of legal trouble that they feel they must consult with a lawyer before they create a potentially derivative work creates an inappropriate level of fear and uncertainty, probably aimed at getting people to avoid creating anything resembling a derivative work (and by so doing, driving fair use out of existence). After all, who the hell has the money to hire a lawyer every time they post a webcomic? The law is out there. The point of the law is to be something that an ordinary person can understand and follow without a team of legal professionals trailing him all the time. Like I said, do you call a lawyer before you climb into a car and start driving down the road, just in case you misunderstood the legal definition of reckless driving?
Solaris 02-23-07, 04:17 AM	Getting people so scared of legal trouble that they feel they must consult with a lawyer before they create a potentially derivative work creates an inappropriate level of fear and uncertainty, probably aimed at getting people to avoid creating anything resembling a derivative work (and by so doing, driving fair use out of existence).That's a fair point. But then again we are living in a world where, when money is on the line, people will aggressively pursue legal action against innocent old ladies who didn't do anything wrong (ihttp://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/8133). The law is out there. The point of the law is to be something that an ordinary person can understand and follow without a team of legal professionals trailing him all the time.Is that its point? I would have to disagree, both that that is its point, and that what you describe is generally possible. In some cases, perhaps; but generally, I'm not able to read and interpret law. I've encountered numerous situations where I thought I understood a legal matter, from reading the relevant text, only to find out that I was mistaken because I lacked the training required in order to properly interpret it. If you're different, then maybe you're a natural, and you should be practicing law. But for the rest of us, the law can be a minefield. There's a reason it takes so long before they'll let you practice it. Like I said, do you call a lawyer before you climb into a car and start driving down the road, just in case you misunderstood the legal definition of reckless driving? If you want to equate consulting a physician every time one dons a prophylactic to consulting a traffic lawyer every time one drives his car, that's fine. But when it comes to performing an abortion, or playing around with people's intellectual property or contracts, most of us will need to consult a professional.
WolfHati 02-23-07, 04:58 AM	Dude. It's a friggin' webcomic. If you have to consult lawyers about it, then something is wrong with the world. Firstly, it's parody, which is almost guaranteed protection. Secondly, unless it's being sold, it's probably under fair use regardless as the material is not central to the D&D product, will have no impact on the saleability or profitability of the material in question, and is used as a minor part in another creative work. Of course it is polite to ask either way, especially if you may eventually sell such works. But if something this minor is requiring of a lawyer, someone, somewhere is out of their bloody mind. Perhaps a great deal of people.
Loki5654 02-23-07, 12:02 PM	I do expect people to know how to prevent the transmission of STDs without having completed their residency, though (just to maintain this analogy). Telling people that they need to consult with a doctor every time they have sex to make sure they don't get AIDS would be creating an inappropriate level of fear and uncertainty, probably aimed at getting people to have less sex. But would you advise them to see a doctor if they were engaging in risky behavior? Yes, you would. Mucking around with someone else's IP is risky behavior (in my opinion) so I advise people to seek professional opinions. That being said: Neither of us seem to be convincing each other of anything, so I'll just restate my two main points and then I'm done here. 1. Stealing is wrong. Period. If the parody/quote/whatever you plan to do even remotely resembles stealing, you need to seriously reconsider your actions. 2. Any legal advice you obtain on these boards is merely an opinion and, frankly, worthless. You have no guarantee that the person giving the advice has any idea what the are talking about. If you plan on taking any legal risk, I urge you to consult a lawyer before doing so. It certainly wouldn't be any fun to create a webcomic, have it start doing well and then have to shut it down after a C&D letter shows up. If you are serious about publishing your artistic vision, make sure you have your ducks in a row before you start.
Zherog 02-23-07, 12:33 PM	http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/service155.htm I haven't read Boozerker's links yet, but this is interesting. When it comes to farmers who have a signed contract, I think the company is absolutely in the right to sue. But for farmers who just happened to have the GE plants grow "spontaneously" on their farms because of drift from a neighbor... :nonono:
boozerker 02-23-07, 03:57 PM	None of us here are lawyers (rules-lawyers, maybe) so asking us is pointless. Wonder how a rules-lawyer would fare in court? It's in the errata Your Horror. The FAQ is not admissible. Objection that's 3.0 legislation! :D Moreover, once you own your bike you own it forever. When you die, you can give it to your daughter and she can give it to her daughter and so on for all eternity. Whereas the law says you have to give up control of a copyright after a finite period of time -- sure, an ever-expanding one under recent statutes, but the law is still clear that the time has to be *finite*. In other words, the law doesn't think copyright is property either. If you actually read the Constitution, copyright pretty much exists "for the promotion of Science and the useful Arts" -- i.e. it's an artificial system designed to create incentives for creators... Which shows that the country's founders might've saw the government's role in protecting ideas and products as a sort of agreement/contract: they'll offer the protection (and they'll foot the costs of enforcement), if you allow others in society fair usage when it's sought, and if down the road, you donate ownership as a gesture to further the nation's legacy. ...that people respecting rights IP holders are not given by the law is a bad thing for creativity, innovation and ultimately any IP market itself may just be my opinion. If people are respecting imaginary laws (rather than official IP laws) it's certainly not good for innovation. Many companies have learned from the internet by observing fan-based material (which fair use makes possible), and improved their product accordingly. Heck, WotC gathered input so quickly for 3.5 precisely because they had expanded 3.0 discussion by way of the OGL. Their actual copyrights are protected by the law. Extending IP protection way beyond what their actual copyrights consist of, however... Agreed. After they've taken all this advice you've given them, what if they turn out not to be fine? True, however it's probably not as bad if you give a direct link to the relevant info at the government's copyright website, and whoever is asking should verify sources and also get varied sources of input. It's not like they're attempting to open a business. If such were the case, and the business potential warrants it, then the lawyer fees are probably a good investment.
ArcTan 02-23-07, 10:10 PM	But would you advise them to see a doctor if they were engaging in risky behavior? Yes, you would. Er, no. Having sex is not particularly risky behavior if you follow a few simple rules. Treating it as risky behavior is the kind of thing abstinence-only folks with a particular political agenda do to distort the facts. Mucking around with someone else's IP is risky behavior (in my opinion) so I advise people to seek professional opinions. Well, I disagree. I think it's pretty clear that "mucking around with someone else's IP" is *inevitable* when a normal person starts any kind of creative work. (I sincerely doubt it's possible to write a story of any length or any merit that does not in some way potentially encroach on someone's IP -- such is the nature of culture.) In much the same way that having sex is, generally, inevitable when ordinary people end up in romantic relationships. It *ought* to be a part of ordinary daily life. If people with a strong political agenda want to change that, they should be honest about wanting to change that rather than acting like their opinions have already been made law. That being said: Neither of us seem to be convincing each other of anything, so I'll just restate my two main points and then I'm done here. 1. Stealing is wrong. Period. If the parody/quote/whatever you plan to do even remotely resembles stealing, you need to seriously reconsider your actions. Copyright infringement, whether or not it's wrong, is not "stealing". Even though it is a crime, it is a different crime. It is not stealing any more than stealing is murder. FWIW, I do not actually believe most copyright infringement is morally wrong, and I have a huge problem with the rapid expansion of IP law that we've seen in recent years. However, I do acknowledge that our laws define it as a crime, and incorporate that into whatever advice I give people about how to avoid being prosecuted. That doesn't mean I have to buy into the rhetoric about how using someone else's idea is a form of "stealing", since *all* ideas can only ever exist by being drawn from other people's. 2. Any legal advice you obtain on these boards is merely an opinion and, frankly, worthless. You have no guarantee that the person giving the advice has any idea what the are talking about. If you plan on taking any legal risk, I urge you to consult a lawyer before doing so. Although a straw poll of people you know -- and people you know to be well-educated and intelligent, rather than strangers on the Internet -- is useful before you decide whether or not what you're doing is risky enough to require paid legal advice. As is doing a little bit of research on your own. Seriously, the growing dependence of our society on specialists to tell us how and when to do every little thing is not a good thing, and I don't intend to encourage it. You don't need a doctor to tell you whether or not a given activity is medically risky, most of the time -- your own education and common sense should be sufficient (and if it isn't, there is something wrong with your own education and common sense). The same is true of lawyers and legal risks. Sorry, but most of us don't have the time or the energy or the money to be constantly surrounded by doctors and lawyers hovering over our shoulders whenever we try to do anything. It certainly wouldn't be any fun to create a webcomic, have it start doing well and then have to shut it down after a C&D letter shows up. If you are serious about publishing your artistic vision, make sure you have your ducks in a row before you start. Yeah, sure, but honestly, the point at which I start worrying is when you've started doing well and might be attracting negative attention for whatever reason. Saying you need to CYA with a lawyer just to put something on a website and show it to your friends is ridiculous. The worst that can happen is that your success gets cut short with a C&D -- seriously, in even the most egregious infringement cases, unless the person was actually publishing for profit all they get is a C&D. And why worry about your success being cut short before you have any success?
ArcTan 02-23-07, 10:16 PM	Wonder how a rules-lawyer would fare in court? It's in the errata Your Horror. The FAQ is not admissible. Objection that's 3.0 legislation! :D What we in D&D call "rules lawyering" is exactly the kind of bad lawyering that's led to the kind of stew we see ourselves in now. Stuff like the Sony EULAs can only be justified by running the actual copyright laws through the worst kind of rules-lawyering wringer. The stuff Sony thinks it has the right to do to your machine without your permission is abusive on the Pun-Pun level. Which shows that the country's founders might've saw the government's role in protecting ideas and products as a sort of agreement/contract: they'll offer the protection (and they'll foot the costs of enforcement), if you allow others in society fair usage when it's sought, and if down the road, you donate ownership as a gesture to further the nation's legacy. Yeah, pretty much. This is how I see it, and what the standard interpretation used to be. I consider it a matter of concern that a growing number of young lawyers and businessmen would rather define IP as a natural right, equivalent to real property, that the state is bound to defend as a natural right, rather than a concession the state makes to the rights-holder for a social good. For one thing, I would consider a world where IP really was property highly unpleasant to live in and try to be an artist in, even on a small scale. For another, I think it's BS logic. For a third, I think it's impossible to try to enforce such a doctrine without creating legal absurdities. If people are respecting imaginary laws (rather than official IP laws) it's certainly not good for innovation. Many companies have learned from the internet by observing fan-based material (which fair use makes possible), and improved their product accordingly. Heck, WotC gathered input so quickly for 3.5 precisely because they had expanded 3.0 discussion by way of the OGL. Yeah. WotC seems to understand that the more open the marketplace of ideas is, the more everyone benefits. This is why I give WotC a lot of respect and don't expect them to try to terrorize potential infringers into submission with spurious C&D letters. Of course, they could always disappoint me. The problem, of course, isn't just the imaginary laws, it's the fact that companies are slowly making these imaginary laws into real IP laws using the leverage they have over lawmakers. They haven't gotten nearly as much as they would like to get, but they're getting there. Turning the constitutionally-mandated finite time limit on copyright into an effectively indefinite one by getting Congress to extend it over, and over, and over again is a pretty blatant example. True, however it's probably not as bad if you give a direct link to the relevant info at the government's copyright website, and whoever is asking should verify sources and also get varied sources of input. It's not like they're attempting to open a business. If such were the case, and the business potential warrants it, then the lawyer fees are probably a good investment. I mean, even an individual lawyer's opinion can be wrong. You should never blindly appeal to authority -- even when you do get a lawyer, you should educate yourself about the law as much as you can so that you know when a lawyer's arguments are biased, self-serving or just generally dodgy and when you need to get a second opinion. (I have the same opinion about going to see doctors.)
khyron1144 02-24-07, 12:26 AM	Well, I disagree. I think it's pretty clear that "mucking around with someone else's IP" is *inevitable* when a normal person starts any kind of creative work. (I sincerely doubt it's possible to write a story of any length or any merit that does not in some way potentially encroach on someone's IP -- such is the nature of culture.) Not to be too big of a jerk, I actually generally agree with you on most points you make, but I believe you are wrong on this specific point. The sort of oddly philosphical novel, The Religion War by Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, probably never mentions any sort of brand name or other copyright or trademark. He makes a point in his intro that although it is a novel, he provides almost no setting detail, instead focusing on dialogue to get his ideas across. His prior novel, God's Debris, is also rather similar.
ArcTan 02-24-07, 01:47 AM	The sort of oddly philosphical novel, The Religion War by Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, probably never mentions any sort of brand name or other copyright or trademark. He makes a point in his intro that although it is a novel, he provides almost no setting detail, instead focusing on dialogue to get his ideas across. His prior novel, God's Debris, is also rather similar. You don't need to mention a brand name, copyright, or trademark in order to be using other people's IP in some way. You don't need "setting detail" to do that. If the story has a plot, the plot is influenced by Adams having read similar plots with similar underlying structures before. If the story has dialogue, it's probably influenced by similar dialogue he's read in other books. Even a simple passage of descriptive text takes its rhythm and cadence and vocabulary choice from all the other books Adams has ever read. It remains not outside the realm of possibility that Adams has unconsciously borrowed large swathes of other books he's read when writing his own books. I can guarantee, given the huge number of books in existence, that you can look for a book that's similar to this book in many ways and you will find one. You will find eerie similarities in certain passages of narration, eerie similarities in certain dialogue back-and-forths, etc. Can you *prove* that Adams, consciously or unconsciously, was influenced by some specific piece of text when he wrote his own text? No. But the fact remains that he couldn't have written his text without input from thousands of other texts, that he's piecing together what he writes from tons of other sources. That's how writing works. That's how language works -- the English language only exists because we see other people use a word and "steal" that word for our own use.
khyron1144 02-24-07, 02:20 AM	Can you *prove* that Adams, consciously or unconsciously, was influenced by some specific piece of text when he wrote his own text? No. But the fact remains that he couldn't have written his text without input from thousands of other texts, that he's piecing together what he writes from tons of other sources. That's how writing works. That's how language works -- the English language only exists because we see other people use a word and "steal" that word for our own use. You are right, I can not prove such a thing. I never thought of IP in that manner before.
Ranger REG 02-24-07, 03:13 AM	You may, of course, disagree with all this. You may want to *abolish* these laws and make it so a copyright lasts forever as long as your estate has the lawyers to enforce it and fair use doesn't exist. Heh. Not many understood the boundaries of the Fair Use policy. :smirk:
Zherog 02-24-07, 11:05 AM	Yeah. WotC seems to understand that the more open the marketplace of ideas is, the more everyone benefits. This is why I give WotC a lot of respect and don't expect them to try to terrorize potential infringers into submission with spurious C&D letters. Of course, they could always disappoint me. I know of one particular instance where WotC issued a C&D letter (though, of course, I'm sure there's several more). PCGen used to have data files for every book - regardless of whether it was open content or not. WotC pretty much ignored it - at least until eTools was released. Once that came out, WotC gave Code Monkey (the publishers of PCGen) a C&D. Now, WotC did a cool thing, though. They didn't just toss a C&D at Code Monkey and make them take everything down and destroy their code and data, and so on. Instead (from what I understand) WotC worked with the developers at Code Monkey to help them make PCGen OGL compliant. WotC didn't have to assist them. They could've simply said, "Delete it," and let it end there. So, I agree - WotC seems to understand the value of an open market for their products, and it makes them a better company.
ArcTan 02-24-07, 12:56 PM	I know of one particular instance where WotC issued a C&D letter (though, of course, I'm sure there's several more). PCGen used to have data files for every book - regardless of whether it was open content or not. WotC pretty much ignored it - at least until eTools was released. Once that came out, WotC gave Code Monkey (the publishers of PCGen) a C&D. Yeah, but that's clearly not a "spurious" C&D, that's clearly a case of actual outright (if possibly well-intentioned) infringement. I never said the law does or should give you the power to make a complete digital copy of a book and give people free access to it without paying the rights-holder. (My opinion is that this basic form of copyright ought to be sufficient, and ought to last for a finite duration much shorter than it currently does, but that's only my opinion, not the law's.) Now, WotC did a cool thing, though. They didn't just toss a C&D at Code Monkey and make them take everything down and destroy their code and data, and so on. Instead (from what I understand) WotC worked with the developers at Code Monkey to help them make PCGen OGL compliant. WotC didn't have to assist them. They could've simply said, "Delete it," and let it end there. So, I agree - WotC seems to understand the value of an open market for their products, and it makes them a better company. Indeed.