Can you copyright your ideas posted in the forum for D&D? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Can you copyright your ideas posted in the forum for D&D?

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
joanne71
Sep 27, 2011 21:47:06 Apparently Wrecan believes he can

community.wizards.com/wrecan/blog/2011/0...

Do you think this is viable?

Can you come up with a new magic item, new spell and then make it 'copyright' so that nobody else can use it except for the wizards of the sword coast?

Think its possible?
#2
blazian
Sep 27, 2011 22:01:01 Yes he can. And did you really need to make a thread for no other reason than to call him out?

That said, thank you. I've been generally unaware of that stuff and its been an awesome read.
#3
Hocus-Smokus
Sep 27, 2011 22:06:32 You can claim intellectual ownership of anything you create.
However...
WotC policy states that anything you put on their website becomes usable by them, and by putting it on their website you are granting them permission to use it however they wish. In effect, if they wanted to, they could take Wrecan's material (much of which is quite good, BTW), and slip it into the next supplement they release without any prior notice to Wrecan. I doubt highly that he would mind, but it is worth pointing out nevertheless.
So...do you own it? Sure. You can copyright it. But by sticking it on the website, you basically just gave it to WotC. If you cared too much about the rights of your creation, you would not put it on the site.
#4
joanne71
Sep 27, 2011 22:15:30
Yes he can. And did you really need to make a thread for no other reason than to call him out?

That said, thank you. I've been generally unaware of that stuff and its been an awesome read.

I liked it too.

I thought the, no you cant use it, but only wizards can, was a little facetious and somewhat wizard sucking, but each to their own.

I think if he intended such the content to be unusable by anyone else, it would be prudent to include a copyright notice.

#5
Haldrik
Sep 27, 2011 22:33:07
I think it is fair.

The forumers retain their copyrights, but WotC gets to borrow for them.

I cant think of a better arrangement for the D&D community.

D&D gamers benefit from all the good ideas that crowdsourcing can produce, since WotC retains the right to include any of the ideas that show during a discussions (and even modify them) in future D&D products. At the same time, individuals with profitable ideas can still own the rights to create indy D&D expansions.
#6
crowscape
Sep 27, 2011 22:38:40 No, as you cannot copyright an idea at all. All that you can copyright is the particular series of words that you use to express that idea. And you own the copyright to those arrangements by default. So, for instance, I own the copyright for this post, and for every post I have made on this forum. Whether those copyrights are valuable is another matter entirely. But rest assured, if someone went out and released a book titled "joanne71's Greatest Threads" and it wasn't WotC, you could sue them.

Edit: Also, if you're going to cite the law, you should quote the law as it is now, not as it was 23 years ago. The US is a party to the Berne convention.
#7
Haldrik
Sep 27, 2011 23:16:04
No, as you cannot copyright an idea at all. All that you can copyright is the particular series of words that you use to express that idea. And you own the copyright to those arrangements by default. So, for instance, I own the copyright for this post, and for every post I have made on this forum. Whether those copyrights are valuable is another matter entirely. But rest assured, if someone went out and released a book titled "joanne71's Greatest Threads" and it wasn't WotC, you could sue them.

Edit: Also, if you're going to cite the law, you should quote the law as it is now, not as it was 23 years ago. The US is a party to the Berne convention.

Yeah, but you can copyright terminology, if not systems.
#8
crowscape
Sep 27, 2011 23:36:51
Yeah, but you can copyright terminology, if not systems.

Nope, you cannot copyright terminology. Copyright extends to works only.

You are likely thinking of trademarks, which is what prevents you from making a third-party game involving beholders(TM) and illithids(TM), although it could have floating eye beasts and squid-faced brain eaters. And trademarks need to be vigorously defended or you lose them. Copyrights do not need to be defended at all for you to retain ownership.

#9
Garthanos
Sep 28, 2011 0:19:08 Which is why you could legally create an analog of any game even without OGL
Note its still a buttocks load of work to do it. Basically a rewrite in mostly your own words.
#42
hunterian7
Sep 29, 2011 9:17:19 I wonder if Paizo has pushed the envelope by producing their own versions of the Slaad and the Beholder and what not.
#43
Seeker95
Sep 29, 2011 9:26:40
I wonder if Paizo has pushed the envelope by producing their own versions of the Slaad and the Beholder and what not.

As long as they do not at any time refer to them as slaad and beholder, they are not pushing any legal envelope. They *might* be pushing the fanbase acceptability envelope, but even that I doubt.
#44
Dane_McArdy
Sep 29, 2011 11:02:44
That's simply not how copyright on intelectual property works.
By writing the particular series of words to express the idea, you copyright the idea.

I'm sorry, but you're dead wrong here. I could go out and write a story about a boy who finds out that he's a wizard, goes off to a magic school, and fights an evil sorcerer that killed his parents, say that I was inspired by Harry Potter, and J.K.Rowling couldn't do anything to me, even if J.K. produced a signed letter by me saying "I love the idea, I'm going to use that for my next book!" and there was a picture of me on the back cover, holding a Harry Potter book and giving a big thumbs up (OK, that last part may get me in trouble, but for completely separate reasons). It's only if I copy her work that I will run into trouble, as her work is protected (which should be obvious, as the laws only talk about "works"). The idea, however, is up for grabs. And this, by the way, is by design, not difficulty in tracking an idea's origin, as there are really only a handful of stories in existence, and all those being written and produced are just repetitions with the details tweaked.

Not entirely true. It depends on HOW much you are "inspired" by Harry Potter.

You call your character Larry Potts. He finds out he's a Mage. He's got a burn mark on his neck, made when his family was attacked by an evil mage. His parents disappeared, and he went to live with his non mage relatives, until he could attend mage school. Once in school, strange things start happening, pointing towards the evil mage that attacked his family. While at school, he makes friends with Jon, and Emma, both students at the mage school, Bigwarts, and they help him solve the mystery going on.

You are totes going to get sued by JK Rowling. Because it's clear, you took her work, changed a few things, and passed it off on your own.

There are many examples of cases just like this. Successful artist Jeff Koons based one if his pieces on a copyrighted image on a postcard he bought (String of Puppies).

Even though he made changes, it was clear, once the photographer saw that he had used his image, the photographer sued, and won.
#45
Garthanos
Sep 29, 2011 11:10:56

Not entirely true. It depends on HOW much you are "inspired" by Harry Potter.

You call your character Larry Potts. He finds out he's a Mage. He's got a burn mark on his neck, made when his family was attacked by an evil mage. His parents disappeared, and he went to live with his non mage relatives, until he could attend mage school. Once in school, strange things start happening, pointing towards the evil mage that attacked his family. While at school, he makes friends with Jon, and Emma, both students at the mage school, Bigwarts, and they help him solve the mystery going on.

You are totes going to get sued by JK Rowling. Because it's clear, you took her work, changed a few things, and passed it off on your own.

If every sentence were an obvious trademark copy and past over and nothing else was worded differently then large abounts of it are copyright infringement even if you did avoid trademarks...
but you can say exactly the same thing with a different sentence construction
and no it isnt a copyright infringement... ofcourse IANSL

You can be sued for anything... valid or not... keeps the lawyers happy.

Imagery has to be changed in at least three ahem significant ways for it to be a new work... I have worked as a graphic artist.. but those significant ways are something a judge recognizes so its pretty subjective.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 joanne71 Sep 27, 2011 21:47:06	Apparently Wrecan believes he can community.wizards.com/wrecan/blog/2011/0... Do you think this is viable? Can you come up with a new magic item, new spell and then make it 'copyright' so that nobody else can use it except for the wizards of the sword coast? Think its possible?
#2 blazian Sep 27, 2011 22:01:01	Yes he can. And did you really need to make a thread for no other reason than to call him out? That said, thank you. I've been generally unaware of that stuff and its been an awesome read.
#3 Hocus-Smokus Sep 27, 2011 22:06:32	You can claim intellectual ownership of anything you create. However... WotC policy states that anything you put on their website becomes usable by them, and by putting it on their website you are granting them permission to use it however they wish. In effect, if they wanted to, they could take Wrecan's material (much of which is quite good, BTW), and slip it into the next supplement they release without any prior notice to Wrecan. I doubt highly that he would mind, but it is worth pointing out nevertheless. So...do you own it? Sure. You can copyright it. But by sticking it on the website, you basically just gave it to WotC. If you cared too much about the rights of your creation, you would not put it on the site.
#4 joanne71 Sep 27, 2011 22:15:30	Yes he can. And did you really need to make a thread for no other reason than to call him out? That said, thank you. I've been generally unaware of that stuff and its been an awesome read. I liked it too. I thought the, no you cant use it, but only wizards can, was a little facetious and somewhat wizard sucking, but each to their own. I think if he intended such the content to be unusable by anyone else, it would be prudent to include a copyright notice.
#5 Haldrik Sep 27, 2011 22:33:07	I think it is fair. The forumers retain their copyrights, but WotC gets to borrow for them. I cant think of a better arrangement for the D&D community. D&D gamers benefit from all the good ideas that crowdsourcing can produce, since WotC retains the right to include any of the ideas that show during a discussions (and even modify them) in future D&D products. At the same time, individuals with profitable ideas can still own the rights to create indy D&D expansions.
#6 crowscape Sep 27, 2011 22:38:40	No, as you cannot copyright an idea at all. All that you can copyright is the particular series of words that you use to express that idea. And you own the copyright to those arrangements by default. So, for instance, I own the copyright for this post, and for every post I have made on this forum. Whether those copyrights are valuable is another matter entirely. But rest assured, if someone went out and released a book titled "joanne71's Greatest Threads" and it wasn't WotC, you could sue them. Edit: Also, if you're going to cite the law, you should quote the law as it is now, not as it was 23 years ago. The US is a party to the Berne convention.
#7 Haldrik Sep 27, 2011 23:16:04	No, as you cannot copyright an idea at all. All that you can copyright is the particular series of words that you use to express that idea. And you own the copyright to those arrangements by default. So, for instance, I own the copyright for this post, and for every post I have made on this forum. Whether those copyrights are valuable is another matter entirely. But rest assured, if someone went out and released a book titled "joanne71's Greatest Threads" and it wasn't WotC, you could sue them. Edit: Also, if you're going to cite the law, you should quote the law as it is now, not as it was 23 years ago. The US is a party to the Berne convention. Yeah, but you can copyright terminology, if not systems.
#8 crowscape Sep 27, 2011 23:36:51	Yeah, but you can copyright terminology, if not systems. Nope, you cannot copyright terminology. Copyright extends to works only. You are likely thinking of trademarks, which is what prevents you from making a third-party game involving beholders(TM) and illithids(TM), although it could have floating eye beasts and squid-faced brain eaters. And trademarks need to be vigorously defended or you lose them. Copyrights do not need to be defended at all for you to retain ownership.
#9 Garthanos Sep 28, 2011 0:19:08	Which is why you could legally create an analog of any game even without OGL Note its still a buttocks load of work to do it. Basically a rewrite in mostly your own words.
#42 hunterian7 Sep 29, 2011 9:17:19	I wonder if Paizo has pushed the envelope by producing their own versions of the Slaad and the Beholder and what not.
#43 Seeker95 Sep 29, 2011 9:26:40	I wonder if Paizo has pushed the envelope by producing their own versions of the Slaad and the Beholder and what not. As long as they do not at any time refer to them as slaad and beholder, they are not pushing any legal envelope. They might be pushing the fanbase acceptability envelope, but even that I doubt.
#44 Dane_McArdy Sep 29, 2011 11:02:44	That's simply not how copyright on intelectual property works. By writing the particular series of words to express the idea, you copyright the idea. I'm sorry, but you're dead wrong here. I could go out and write a story about a boy who finds out that he's a wizard, goes off to a magic school, and fights an evil sorcerer that killed his parents, say that I was inspired by Harry Potter, and J.K.Rowling couldn't do anything to me, even if J.K. produced a signed letter by me saying "I love the idea, I'm going to use that for my next book!" and there was a picture of me on the back cover, holding a Harry Potter book and giving a big thumbs up (OK, that last part may get me in trouble, but for completely separate reasons). It's only if I copy her work that I will run into trouble, as her work is protected (which should be obvious, as the laws only talk about "works"). The idea, however, is up for grabs. And this, by the way, is by design, not difficulty in tracking an idea's origin, as there are really only a handful of stories in existence, and all those being written and produced are just repetitions with the details tweaked. Not entirely true. It depends on HOW much you are "inspired" by Harry Potter. You call your character Larry Potts. He finds out he's a Mage. He's got a burn mark on his neck, made when his family was attacked by an evil mage. His parents disappeared, and he went to live with his non mage relatives, until he could attend mage school. Once in school, strange things start happening, pointing towards the evil mage that attacked his family. While at school, he makes friends with Jon, and Emma, both students at the mage school, Bigwarts, and they help him solve the mystery going on. You are totes going to get sued by JK Rowling. Because it's clear, you took her work, changed a few things, and passed it off on your own. There are many examples of cases just like this. Successful artist Jeff Koons based one if his pieces on a copyrighted image on a postcard he bought (String of Puppies). Even though he made changes, it was clear, once the photographer saw that he had used his image, the photographer sued, and won.
#45 Garthanos Sep 29, 2011 11:10:56	Not entirely true. It depends on HOW much you are "inspired" by Harry Potter. You call your character Larry Potts. He finds out he's a Mage. He's got a burn mark on his neck, made when his family was attacked by an evil mage. His parents disappeared, and he went to live with his non mage relatives, until he could attend mage school. Once in school, strange things start happening, pointing towards the evil mage that attacked his family. While at school, he makes friends with Jon, and Emma, both students at the mage school, Bigwarts, and they help him solve the mystery going on. You are totes going to get sued by JK Rowling. Because it's clear, you took her work, changed a few things, and passed it off on your own. If every sentence were an obvious trademark copy and past over and nothing else was worded differently then large abounts of it are copyright infringement even if you did avoid trademarks... but you can say exactly the same thing with a different sentence construction and no it isnt a copyright infringement... ofcourse IANSL You can be sued for anything... valid or not... keeps the lawyers happy. Imagery has to be changed in at least three ahem significant ways for it to be a new work... I have worked as a graphic artist.. but those significant ways are something a judge recognizes so its pretty subjective.