Topic: When is it plagarism
Started by: Bunsen
Started on: 5/31/2004
Board: Publishing
On 5/31/2004 at 8:50am, Bunsen wrote:
When is it plagarism
Okay, working on releasing my own RPG system and Campaign World and I was wondering what WOTC had copyright on. My friend is saying they have the rights on using Rogue, Barabarian, Paladin and such as Class names. They wouldnt have right to Dwarves, Elves and Orcs but what about Kobolds, Gnolls and most imprtantly Mindflayers. If anyone's got any info about what is public domain, could you post it here. Thanks
On 5/31/2004 at 9:51am, Eero Tuovinen wrote:
Re: When is it plagarism
Bunsen wrote: Okay, working on releasing my own RPG system and Campaign World and I was wondering what WOTC had copyright on. My friend is saying they have the rights on using Rogue, Barabarian, Paladin and such as Class names. They wouldnt have right to Dwarves, Elves and Orcs but what about Kobolds, Gnolls and most imprtantly Mindflayers. If anyone's got any info about what is public domain, could you post it here. Thanks
You cannot copyright common words already established in common parlance. Thus rogue (thief, standard english word), barbarian (dating to about 2000 BC in greek), paladin (medieval french), dwarf (short person, standard english), elf (sprite, standard english) orc (from latin orcus) and kobold (medieval german) are all not copyrightable. AFAIK gnolls and mindflayers are inventions of the D&D crew from various periods, so those are their property. You could conseivably use mindflayer as a name in an entirely different context, though, or use either of the above almost as is by giving them new names. As a rule of thumb, you can only copyright representations of ideas, while the ideas themselves are always common property. Otherwise we wouldn't have very much room for invention, would we?
I suggest familiarizing yourself with OGL/d20 scene, as much of the things you might want to use are available under OGL licence anyway.
On 5/31/2004 at 11:38am, Sean wrote:
RE: When is it plagarism
Gnolls were invented by Lord Dunsany, so they're open to all. Mind Flayers are arguably Wizards IP (they will argue it). If you want to find out the short list of creatures that Wizards may own, find a list of the monsters that were taken out of the original SRD - these are the ones they think they own.
The Tolkien estate will sue you if you use "Hobbit" or "Balrog". Wizards will sue you if you use one of the monsters on their short list. It's not clear whether they will win, but if you don't want to spend a lot of money and/or time and/or hassle finding out don't use these critters. Ditto the ones Wizards is claiming.
(There are some interesting grey areas here that haven't been challenged, like the Displacer Beast, which visually is identical to a creature in an old Arthur C. Clarke (IIRC) novel, but has different powers. Hasbro apparently thinks they can try to own this. Another interesting area would be if you had a brain-eating non-bipedal, non-intelligent tentacled horror and allowed it to be called a 'mind flayer' on the ground that it was descriptive of what the creature did, maybe giving it a primary name that was different too.)
On 5/31/2004 at 12:07pm, timfire wrote:
RE: When is it plagarism
I checked the SRD, Kobolds and Gnolls are in, but the Mindflayer ISN'T... so I assume that means you can use the former but not the latter.
I know the legal value of the OGL is questionable, but if you're worried about what you can and can't use, download the SRD from WOTC. You can use anything in the SRD as long as you include a copy of the OGL and make it clear what's original and what's taken form the SRD.
[edited for spelling & grammar]
On 5/31/2004 at 2:36pm, madelf wrote:
RE: When is it plagarism
The Tolkien estate will sue you if you use "Hobbit"
Has this ever actually occured?
It seems like there were a couple of old games that used "hobbit". I don't recall having heard anything about lawsuits over it. Of course they might be touchier now than they were then, too.
Also note that just because someone doesn't have a leg to stand on, doesn't mean they won't sue. (A certain publisher who believes they own the rights to all the works of H.P. Lovecraft, many of which have actually passed into public domain, comes to mind)
I even had some clown once accuse me of copyright infringement with work that was my original creation, though nothing came of it. I called their bluff & they backed down.
The only way to be safe is to go all original (and keep your development notes & rough drafts), or be certain to document the antiquity of your source... so that you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that your ass is covered if you ever get taken to court.
On 5/31/2004 at 2:58pm, Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
RE: When is it plagarism
madelf wrote:The Tolkien estate will sue you if you use "Hobbit"
Has this ever actually occured?
Legends says that TSR was threatened with legal action over the use of "Hobbit" and "Ent" in D&D, hence why they use "halfling" and "Treant"
I am uncertain of the accuracy or details of this. Different people have told me different things.
On 5/31/2004 at 3:01pm, daMoose_Neo wrote:
RE: When is it plagarism
I got that once on CafePress- they wrote me to tell me they suspended my shop because the artwork on it appeared to be copyrighted...which was absurd :P Wrote them and they were nice enough *cough* to unlock it.
As for 'Hobbit', I don't believe I've seen it anywhere else than a lisenced or fan/virtually unknown project. Halfing is all over the place, Lucas used the name "Nelwyn" for his "hobbits" in Willow, but never else where have I seen "Hobbit", which would be copyrightable as a name though DND's "Halflings" are virtually so.
Faries, Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes, Unicorns, etc are all for the most part mythical and fairly old so no one can truly hold a copyright on that.
On 5/31/2004 at 3:29pm, madelf wrote:
RE: When is it plagarism
"Hobbit" supposedly was used in Tunnels and Trolls without anyone raising a stink.
Again, I'm not saying that would be the case now. I personally wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. I've even skipped "Halfling" and made all my short and non-burly folks Gnomes.
And just to be nitpicky... when it comes to names, we really should be talking about trademarks. Names aren't covered by copyright.
On the copyright infringement claim, I didn't get hit by cafepress. I was working on an on-line game, doing the illustrations for it, and I (along with the game creator) got a letter accusing us of copyright infringement and threatening legal action. Neither of us had even heard of the company making the accusation. Some searching uncovered another on-line game that (though very different) would have seen what we were doing as competition. They were trying to scare us off. I found that rather annoying.
On 5/31/2004 at 3:48pm, greyorm wrote:
RE: When is it plagarism
One more reason you never take legal advice from non-lawyers.
Names are not copyrightable. They are trademarkable. WotC, the Tolkien Estate, and etc. would own the trademark for the names.
Maybe not much difference to you, but there is a big difference legally. The tests for infringement are very different between copyright and trademark. For trademark infringement, even anything "confusingly similar" to a trademarked name, logo, or slogan is actionable. As well, the fines and penalties faced by the defendant differ.
US Patent and Trademark Office wrote: "A trademark includes any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination, used, or intended to be used, in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from goods manufactured or sold by others, and to indicate the source of the goods. In short, a trademark is a brand name."
However, I'm not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Talk to a lawyer who specializes in intellectual property law.
On 5/31/2004 at 5:03pm, Paganini wrote:
RE: When is it plagarism
Just a note, T&T did not get away with using "hobbit." They changed it to "halfling" at the request of the TE.
On 5/31/2004 at 6:45pm, Space Cowboy wrote:
RE: When is it plagarism
madelf wrote: "Hobbit" supposedly was used in Tunnels and Trolls without anyone raising a stink.
Again, I'm not saying that would be the case now. I personally wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. I've even skipped "Halfling" and made all my short and non-burly folks Gnomes.
I'd agree with Madelf's point of view. In my humble opinion, to be sued (assuming it gets that far) is to lose, given the costs of legal representation.
For my own creative work, if someone notes and if I agree that a big company has even a remotely colorable claim, I change the term.
Cheers
On 5/31/2004 at 6:55pm, madelf wrote:
RE: When is it plagarism
Paganini wrote: Just a note, T&T did not get away with using "hobbit." They changed it to "halfling" at the request of the TE.
It is certainly possible that I have been misinformed, but it was my understanding that hobbit was used throughout the life of the product, and multiple editions of the game. In fact I've seen references to the sixth edition which mention hobbits as being one of the available races.
On 5/31/2004 at 11:58pm, Bunsen wrote:
RE: When is it plagarism
Okay, I know I'm gonna sound like a noob, but whats the SRD, i know about the OGL and where to get it but I dont know where to get the SRD. Help anyone?
On 6/1/2004 at 2:30am, Loki wrote:
RE: When is it plagarism
On 6/3/2004 at 5:53am, John Kirk wrote:
RE: When is it plagarism
If you're looking for terms that are definately in the public domain, you might want to look at my game Legendary Quest.
The game is based completely off of authentic European and Mediterranean folklore and mythology. As such, there isn't a single monster in the game whose name anybody owns. There are 3 monster books, and many of the monsters have alternate names and spellings listed. So, that will definately get you started. Now, if you completely duplicate my entire list of monsters, then I might have something to say about it :-) But, I probably wouldn't have a legal leg on which to stand.
The same goes for the classes in the main rule book, "The Grimoire of Game Rules". I didn't make up any of those terms either. I could probably claim to have ownership of many of the spell names in the magic systems, since they mostly describe otherwise unnamed powers of mythical beasts and I had to call them something.
As far as "Hobbit" goes, the closest terms I have found in my research of folklore is "Hobithryst", meaning "Good Giant" in Old English. This is a bit of an odd term, considering the small size of Hobs in general, but folklore rarely makes sense. I'm almost certain Tolkein derived the term "Hobbit" from this. (He was, after all, an English professor and a linguistic genius.) If you want to have Hobbit-type characters, just use the authentic term of "Hob" like I do, or "Hobmen". "Lob", or "Lobby" are other equivalent terms (used in the last Harry Potter movie, incidentally). Or, you might just want to use the term "Hobgoblin", which means "Good Goblin" in Old English. Obviously, D&D got that one wrong :-)
"Kobold" is a term for a German mining goblin. Oddly enough, Kobolds are also known for their culinary skills. In actual fact, the name of the element "Cobalt" is derived from it. So, Kobold is perfectly safe to use.
As far as Gnoll goes, I've never seen it in any literature other than D&D. And, believe me, I've looked. I think that it was made up as a contraction of "Gnomish-Troll", indicating a Gnoll is some kind of Gnome/Troll hybrid, but I can't say for sure. I think you'd better keep away from using that term.
Mind Flayers are, without a doubt, a D&D invention. Tread very lightly here. If you want an authentic source for a Mind Flayer type creature, you might want to look at the ancient mystery cult of Mithraism. One of its cryptic symbols is that of a lion-headed man with serpents coming out of its hair entwined around its body. David Ulansey in "The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries" argues fairly effectively that this creature corresponds to the Grecian Gorgon (Medusa). In actual folklore, the mystery cults (including Mithraism, the Hashashim, the Templars, the cult of Isis, and others) are the origins of the modern day myths concerning psychic powers, so using this "Gorgon" man as a Mind Flayer alternative makes a lot of sense from a mythic perspective.
BTW, Euro, I'm quite impressed that you knew that "orc" derives from "orcus". You are quite correct. Very few people have that bit of esoteric knowledge.
On 6/3/2004 at 10:02am, Erick Wujcik wrote:
RE: Re: When is it plagarism
Bunsen wrote: ...working on releasing my own RPG system and Campaign World and I was wondering what WOTC had copyright on...
While the information posted above is excellent, I'd just like to add another perspective...
You asked what terms were public domain (elf, dwarf, etc.), and which were not (as others have pointed out, mindflayer and gnoll are off-limits). The best advice, of course, was that you should consult with an attorney (greyorm is quite right!).
However, I'd like to point out why you, and other RPG designers, should sometimes avoid those names that are in the public domain.
See, you are embarking on the creation of an IP; an 'Intellectual Property.' Your creation, and here I'm pointing at the role-playing world that you are hatching, is a potentially valuable IP.
Will it eventually make you millions? Will movie directors, electronic game producers, toy manufacturers and fast food joints come rushing at you with lucrative contracts?
It's unlikely.
On the other hand, such things do happen.
We have a tendency, in our little 'paper' RPG industry to think of ourselves as 'small potatoes,' especially compared to the multi-billion dollar electronic game market. But the one thing we've got in our field is the freedom to create IP...
...and, believe me, at the latest e3 in Los Angeles, where all the new electronic games were being showcased, one didn't see a whole lot of creative freedom; mostly justgames based on movie, comic or sequel IP.
The question is, what makes an IP valuable? And what degrades the value of an IP?
The general rule is, the more generic the components, the more worthless the IP. Conversely, the more unique and 'brand-able' the components, the more valuable the IP.
Now, in this case, when I say 'components,' I'm talking about the literary components, things like the names of places, people, creations, powers, abilities, etc. In other words, the 'components' that would go into the recreation of your literary property into another media (into an animated television show, for example).
So, in your particular case, calling the delicate, long-lived, pointy-eared people, 'elves,' degrades your IP. Calling them, for example, "I'tox" or "Greenbloods" or "Oak People" offers your future licensors the ability to apply trademark, and to sell, sell, sell all kinds of tie-in products (which explains why the Tolkien Estate was pretty fussy about who was going to use the term 'Hobbit').
I'd go on, especially on the topic of how much 'new' and how much 'used' (public domain) should go into a new game, but I think I've got the making of my next article for the Forge right here...
Erick
On 6/3/2004 at 5:17pm, greyorm wrote:
RE: When is it plagarism
As far as Gnoll goes, I've never seen it in any literature other than D&D. And, believe me, I've looked. I think that it was made up as a contraction of "Gnomish-Troll", indicating a Gnoll is some kind of Gnome/Troll hybrid, but I can't say for sure. I think you'd better keep away from using that term.
Check higher in the thread, as Sean stated, gnolls were a creation of Lord Dunsany. He wote about them in "How Nuth Would Have Practiced His Art Upon the Gnoles," wherein they were not described, except as "very wealthy and very protective of that wealth."
The first mention of gnolls in D&D is from Gygax, D&D, Vol 2. Monsters & Treasure: "A cross between Gnomes and Trolls with +2 morale. Otherwise they are similar to Hobgoblins, although the Gnoll king and his bodyguard of from 1 - 4 will fight as Trolls but lack regenerative power."
They've even been referenced in the Terry Practchet novel, Equal Rights. And I see them included and referenced in various video games, such as Warcraft and Everquest, and in various non-WotC-owned or licensed print products for RPGs.
Given the above, gnolls appear to be quite "safe" to use, as WotC doesn't seem to be actively defending it as their IP (if they've claimed it as theirs at all). Given the widespread useage, if they ever had trademarked it, given the number of references and usage I have seen, it would have effectively entered the public domain and is no longer defensible as IP (much as what happened with 'Kleenex' and 'Xerox').
On 6/3/2004 at 7:46pm, Paul Czege wrote:
RE: When is it plagarism
Erick,
I'd go on, especially on the topic of how much 'new' and how much 'used' (public domain) should go into a new game, but I think I've got the making of my next article for the Forge right here...
Great topic! Have you seen Greg Costikyan's blog entry, Husky & Starch: The Wonderful World of Sucky Licenses?
Paul
On 6/3/2004 at 8:26pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: When is it plagarism
Didn't Terry Brooks use Gnolls, too, as his genric bad guys? I seem to recall the phrase "wizened little men" used over and over to describe them. Or do I misremember?
Mind Flayers are, without a doubt, a D&D invention. Tread very lightly here. If you want an authentic source for a Mind Flayer type creature, you might want to look at the ancient mystery cult of Mithraism.Oh, I don't think you have to go that far. Mind Flayers are Spawn of Cthulhu. Think about it for a second. Alien, looking like Cthulhu except for the lack of wings. Highly intelligent, but posessed of infathomable motives. And capable of causing breaks in people's sanity.
How are Mind Flayers not carefully copied Spawn of Cthulhu? Oh, sure, no wings, and not as large, but...
As such, if you want to put something similar into a game, I think it'd be a relatively easy thing to file the numbers off. In fact, I believe that you could even call them Spawn of Cthulhu if you wanted to.
Not a lawyer, yadda, yadda.
That said, you have to consider what Erick says. I mean he was involved with this little thing called Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (and other strangeness), so I think he makes a very good point. Why not be more original. That's not to say that you should lose all reference points - people make that mistake all the time, too. But, c'mon, what do Mind Flayers have that you couldn't improve upon?
Mike
On 6/4/2004 at 12:52am, greyorm wrote:
RE: When is it plagarism
Mike Holmes wrote: Didn't Terry Brooks use Gnolls, too...Or do I misremember?
You are thinking of "gnomes." Small, weathered, yellow, superstitous, pagan savages. And they weren't all bad guys: the healers of Storlock are gnomes; though in the main, they tend to be on the wrong side of things.
Brooks work is interesting because of what he does with very traditional concepts. While remaining true to their archetype, he changes their details, and not just surface detail, enough to create his own rather unique conceptions thereof.
On 6/6/2004 at 1:57am, Bunsen wrote:
RE: When is it plagarism
Most of what I am using is my own cration or at least different enough to not be classed as the same. I just needed some things to populate the holes in the world.
For example, instead of elves, I have created a race called the "Vy'ir" who take the place of the magic race but have a completely different origin, purpose in the world and different abilities.
Also, instead of having Dwarves, I have the "Dru'marr" who look similar, but have a very distinct feature that seperates them, and they are taking on a more Druidic society, as they try and protect the now injured World Wyrm.
So really there shouldn't be much trouble there but I wasnt sure about how much could be similar to WOTC materials, so I checked the SRD. From my understanding of the OGL you can use anything in the SRD and still get publihed, right?
And my mum works with some lawyers so I could get them to run past it and give me teh jist of it cause it confuses the fug out of me.
On 6/6/2004 at 8:42am, Eero Tuovinen wrote:
RE: When is it plagarism
Bunsen wrote:
Most of what I am using is my own cration or at least different enough to not be classed as the same. I just needed some things to populate the holes in the world.
Not any of my business, but I do hope that you have some other function for these guys than being placeholders.
So really there shouldn't be much trouble there but I wasnt sure about how much could be similar to WOTC materials, so I checked the SRD. From my understanding of the OGL you can use anything in the SRD and still get publihed, right?
If you use the SRD you have to also have the OGL licence somewhere in your book. The licence text is available in the WotC site. You will need to add any OGL sources you use in the book to the last chapter (the place where they say that the licence text is copyrighted to WotC) in the form they give in the source material. Add also your own work, whatever it's name and copyright status.
You have to also somehow designate the parts of the book that are OGL and differentiate them from the other content. All content from OGL sources has to be so marked, but you can also designate any material you own yourself. Nowadays the favored way is to have a list of such OGL chapters and pages on the title page or just before the licence. Another option is to put all OGL or non-OGL material into boxes and tell somewhere that this and this means that the material is OGL. Take an OGL book and look there how they do it.
On 6/9/2004 at 11:25pm, Bunsen wrote:
RE: When is it plagarism
I didnt mean place holders, I meant using some aspects of them, such as appearance and some abilities but giving them a good overhaul. But mostly I'm going to create new creatures and stuff its just that some of the stuff in the SRD would fit really well in my world and system. But mostly it's going to be mainly original work.
On 6/10/2004 at 2:25am, efindel wrote:
RE: When is it plagarism
madelf wrote:Paganini wrote: Just a note, T&T did not get away with using "hobbit." They changed it to "halfling" at the request of the TE.
It is certainly possible that I have been misinformed, but it was my understanding that hobbit was used throughout the life of the product, and multiple editions of the game. In fact I've seen references to the sixth edition which mention hobbits as being one of the available races.
I know it's considered bad form to reply to older messages here; forgive me, I was out of town for a week.
There is no official "sixth edition" of T&T -- the "sixth edition" is a fan-created work, and T&T is officially currently still on its fifth edition. But in any case, I pulled my copy of fifth edition down from the shelf... and it does indeed use the term "hobbit".
I'll note that I have the British edition, though; I don't know if the US edition is identical or not.
On 6/10/2004 at 10:10pm, Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
RE: When is it plagarism
efindel wrote: I know it's considered bad form to reply to older messages here; forgive me, I was out of town for a week.
I think the rule-of-thumb is if it falls off the front page of the forum, barring the thread being closed. This thread is still fairly active, so you're alright.
I'll note that I have the British edition, though; I don't know if the US edition is identical or not.
I used to have the British Corgi version. FBI is selling it now, I think. They ran out of their copies and they got their mits on the Corgi backstock. There are some minor differences in the text, completely different artwork, different layout for obvious reasons, but otherwise the same. Some refer to it as the 5th ed revised.
On 6/11/2004 at 12:46pm, Tav_Behemoth wrote:
RE: When is it plagarism
Eero Tuovinen wrote: You have to also somehow designate the parts of the book that are OGL and differentiate them from the other content. All content from OGL sources has to be so marked, but you can also designate any material you own yourself. Nowadays the favored way is to have a list of such OGL chapters and pages on the title page or just before the licence. Another option is to put all OGL or non-OGL material into boxes and tell somewhere that this and this means that the material is OGL. Take an OGL book and look there how they do it.
Note that, unlike any other form of writing, you can't mention the titles of the works you used (even in a bibilographic citation) except:
1) within Section 15 of the Open Gaming License you have to print in your book
or
2) if you specifically get permission.
In my opinion, this is one of the big and unresolved problems with the Open Gaming system--every other open system for transmitting & refining intellectual effort, like scientific or academic publication, depends on accurate citation of prior sources.
As a rule, creators *want* their OGL material to be cited; since they can't stop you from using it, they'd just as soon receive credit for their work! Some publishers may believe that having their books referenced by an "inferior" source might damage the value of their name, however, which (I think) is why the OGL is designed the way it is.
There are some recent threads at EN World that touch on this; don't want to cross-post (esp. about technical issues with a license most of y'all don't use), but drop me a line if you're putting together a Section 15 or just have an intellectual interest in the role of citation in open systems.
On 6/11/2004 at 12:57pm, Ben Lehman wrote:
RE: When is it plagarism
efindel wrote:madelf wrote:Paganini wrote: Just a note, T&T did not get away with using "hobbit." They changed it to "halfling" at the request of the TE.
It is certainly possible that I have been misinformed, but it was my understanding that hobbit was used throughout the life of the product, and multiple editions of the game. In fact I've seen references to the sixth edition which mention hobbits as being one of the available races.
I know it's considered bad form to reply to older messages here; forgive me, I was out of town for a week.
There is no official "sixth edition" of T&T -- the "sixth edition" is a fan-created work, and T&T is officially currently still on its fifth edition. But in any case, I pulled my copy of fifth edition down from the shelf... and it does indeed use the term "hobbit".
I'll note that I have the British edition, though; I don't know if the US edition is identical or not.
BL> I wonder if the inclusion of "Hobbit" as an English word in the OED has any effect on its legal status as a trademark. I wonder, if it doesn't, if it is the first official word in the English language that is illegal to print for reasons outside of profanity.
yrs--
--Ben
On 6/11/2004 at 2:55pm, Erick Wujcik wrote:
RE: When is it plagarism
Ben Lehman wrote: ...I wonder if the inclusion of "Hobbit" as an English word in the OED has any effect on its legal status as a trademark. I wonder, if it doesn't, if it is the first official word in the English language that is illegal to print for reasons outside of profanity.
Since we're wandering into IP (Intellectual Property) confusion, a few words of clarification.
First off, there are three levels of IP protection (please excuse the elementary subject matter).
0. Ideas themselves cannot be protected. Only the application of ideas, or the expression of ideas. For example, you can't protect, no matter how novel the concept, or how valuable the IP, a mathmatical formula (there is a continuing debate about whether computer algorithms should be protected as IP, and you can count me as against it).
1. The application of ideas is protected by patent. The game "Monopoly" was patented, as were CCGs by the Magic/WOTC folks. It's not a huge issue in the RPG field, since no one bothered to patent any of the original RPGs (although they could have -- and my lawyer was quite certain that I could have patented my diceless role-playing system, but I would rather have more diceless RPGs than risk limiting their creation).
2. Trademark protects particular words or phrases, usually those that are descriptive of products or services. As a general rule, you only trademark those terms that are labels (I'll mention "Rifts" and "RECON" as two that I've been involved with). For a very specific example, 'Superhero' is trademarked jointly by DC and Marvel Comics, because it refers to a type of comic that they have labelled 'Superhero Comics,' and to use that term even casually in a RPG is an invitation to a lawsuit.
'Hobbit' has not, to the best of my knowledge, ever been the subject of a trademark. For one thing, each and every new issue of the "Lord of the Rings" would be ammended so that a little 'TM' (or a little circle with an 'R' in it) could be attached to each use of 'Hobbit' throughout the text, and I've yet to see that...
3. Which brings us to copyright, which protects creative works and, to some degree, their component parts. Absolutely, without question, 'Hobbit' and the related creation (small humanoids with furry feet and large appetites) are covered by Tolkien's copyright, which is the property of his estate. Hobbits, in other words, are the expression of Tolkien's creativity, and an original part of his copywritten work (his novels).
The word 'Hobbit' itself is not protected. Should you wish to name a character 'Hobbit' in your upcoming novel, screenplay or comicbook, you're pretty much at liberty to do so (unlike, say, 'superhero' or 'Coca Cola' or 'Paxil')... Pretty much...
However, you are not free to plunder Tolkien's copyright. Which means you can't infringe on the expression of his idea, on his 'creation.' So, in the case of RPGs, you can't include a 'Hobbit' class, especially if you describe them as Tolkien does, or paraphrase Tolkien's description (although, clearly, TSR felt free to create a 'Hafling' race).
Remember when I said you could name a character 'Hobbit?' Well, you can, so long are you aren't trying to profit from Tolkien's creation. In other words, if you name your character 'Hobbit' because she's small and has largish feet, you're borrowing from Tolkien to give your audience a shorthand clue as to the chracter... which is stealing from Tolkien, and a violation of copyright. Which means you can't use 'Hobbit' in any way that reminds us, in either a positive or negative way, of Tolkien's creation.
So, to answer the original question. Yes, it's okay for a dictionary to print up a definition of 'Hobbit' (although, if you made a 'Middle Earth Dictionary' that consisted of a lot of Tolkien's creations, you'd also be violating copyright)...
Erick
On 6/11/2004 at 3:04pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: When is it plagarism
Hello,
Although all the discussion has been interesting so far, I think the hobbit excursion has been a red herring. Erick, thanks for clarifying the rules that people really ought to know before posting about what they "heard" the Tolkien estate did or didn't do. (and yeah, article article)
I'd like to focus back on Bunsen's basic question. Bunsen, have you had your questions answered? Are there any other aspects of the issue that you'd like to bring up?
Best,
Ron
On 6/14/2004 at 2:20am, Bunsen wrote:
RE: When is it plagarism
From my understanding of what you guys said, i can :
A) Use anything in the SRD as long as I have a copy of the OGL in my book, point out that it is from the SRD, either by boxing it in or otherwise.
B)Copyright anything I create myself.
If i have any part of this wrong please point it out.
On 6/14/2004 at 7:04am, Tav_Behemoth wrote:
RE: When is it plagarism
Bunsen,
Here are answers to your questions, but the first question is whether you actually want to make a product that uses the D&D/d20 rules. If not, then this becomes a slightly different discussion. If you do want to reuse game mechanics as well as names and concepts, here are answers about the Open Game License:
A) Yes, everything you find in the SRD is guaranteed to be Open Game Content. You can re-use any piece of Open Game Content as long as you print the Open Game License in your book, and name each source you borrowed OGC from in its Section 15.
B) You can copyright the entire package of your work, even if some parts of it are "borrowed" and others are "copyleft" (in otherwords, the OGL allows sharing of otherwise copyright material).
You must designate parts of the work are Product Identity; in other words, those bits which you created and aren't derivative of other OGC. A common rule of thumb is to designate everything that's a mechanic or rule as OGC, and to designate everything that's a story, proper name, setting element, and other flavor/color bits as PI. You can decide to make some setting bits OGC, but it's not recommended to try to make some rules PI unless you're very sure they wouldn't be considered an extension of the basic D&D rules.
You can trademark individual words & phrases to add an extra degree of protection/control over them.
Check out the official d20 FAQs herefor for a pretty good guide to these issues.