Topic: How much "inspiration" is legal?
Started by: copx
Started on: 7/8/2006
Board: Publishing
On 7/8/2006 at 12:23am, copx wrote:
How much "inspiration" is legal?
Can I sell something if the mechanics are mostly taken from other (commercial) RPGs? The rules of my game are a crossbreed of WFRP 1st Edition, Inquisitor and my own rules. I have also taken some content, item statistics to be exact, from Inquisitor. The stuff is pretty generic, though. "Shotgun, 2D6", "Boldgun 2D10+2" etc.
As far as the rules are concerned: sometimes they are a straight copy, for example I use the WFRP Initiative system without modifications. Sometimes they are a mix of my rules and rules from those RPGs. For example I use the Inquisitor shooting rules for two firing modes, but my own rules for the third one. Most of the other rules related to shooting are also home made.
I am really confused about this issue. I did search these forums before writing this. It seems that most indy RPG developers do not mind if one copies their mechanics as long as proper credit is given while the big corporations may sue anyone into the ground just for using dice if they feel like...
I should mention that I am not professional RPG designer myself. I am working on a CRPG and I just used WFRP/Inquisitor for "inspiration" because my own attempts at designing a good rule set from scratch led to awful results.
I guess I should also mention that I am "indy", too. There is no big budget or legal department to solve these issues..
P.S.: Just to make it clear, I am not talking about copying copyrighted text here. I am strictly talking about the mechanics themselves.
On 7/8/2006 at 1:43am, Kesher wrote:
Re: How much "inspiration" is legal?
Howdy, and welcome to the Forge!
First off, I can't help you with the "borrowed rules" question; anything I said would be conjecture, so maybe someone who actually knows'll pop in and set you straight. It is certainly true that around these parts most designers don't mind a bit if you use rules of theirs as inspiration or even straight out, as long as credit is given where it's due; no need to re-invent the wheel!
Actually though, I'm interested in hearing more about why you decided your first attempt at writing rules stank so badly; what was it that failed? Do you think it's possible the system tanked because you didn't have a clear idea of what the players and characters were supposed to be doing? Or, maybe, because you built rules that actually didn't let them do what you actually wanted them to do?
Aaron
On 7/8/2006 at 2:52am, Valamir wrote:
RE: Re: How much "inspiration" is legal?
Mechanics are fair game. The words used to describe mechanics are copy protected.
If you copied a paragraph of white wolf text, that would be a violation. If you describe in your own words mechanics that ultimately result in the players at the table doing the same thing that's not.
But as a general rule seeking legal advice on an internet forum is not a good idea. When in doubt, consult a copy right attorney.
On 7/8/2006 at 3:02am, Bill Masek wrote:
RE: Re: How much "inspiration" is legal?
Copx,
A very good question.
I am not a professional in this field, but I have studied it a bit. I believe that there are two elements to it.
First you have copy rights. These only apply to the wording of something. So you can't take chunks of text from another game which are longer then 5 words and paste them directly into your game. I do not believe that the mechanics themselves can be copyrighted.
The other issue you have are trademarks. A corporation can make certain rules or pieces of their game trademarked if they are the first to create it and no one else has used them yet. For example, I believe that Wizards of the Coast (now owned by Hasbro) has the motion of rotating a card right 180 degrees trademarked. However, I believe that they must explicitly mention all trademarks on each product. So if the books you are taking these mechanics from do not have trademark information on them, then I believe that you are not in danger of violating the trademarks.
Best,
Bill
On 7/8/2006 at 3:29am, copx wrote:
RE: Re: How much "inspiration" is legal?
Kesher wrote:
Actually though, I'm interested in hearing more about why you decided your first attempt at writing rules stank so badly; what was it that failed?
The rules were too simplistic. I love detailed rules and designing those is not easy. It is especially difficult if you do not even understand the stuff you are trying to translate into game rules. I reached the conclusion that designing a good rule set for a game is about as much work as programming one. I think I would never get anywhere if I attempted to do both things on my own.
Do you think it's possible the system tanked because you didn't have a clear idea of what the players and characters were supposed to be doing? Or, maybe, because you built rules that actually didn't let them do what you actually wanted them to do?
The issue was a lack of options and that was caused by my simplistic system. Remember I am writing about a CRPG here i.e. a option that is not part of the rules does not exist.
On 7/8/2006 at 3:38am, copx wrote:
RE: Re: How much "inspiration" is legal?
Valamir wrote:
Mechanics are fair game. The words used to describe mechanics are copy protected.
If you copied a paragraph of white wolf text, that would be a violation. If you describe in your own words mechanics that ultimately result in the players at the table doing the same thing that's not.
Does "words used to describe mechanics" include character stat names? For example I have stats called "Weapon skill (WS)" and "Ballistic skill (BS)", those terms were copied from WFRP. Do I have to rename those to "Melee skill" and "Shooting skill" for example?
On 7/8/2006 at 7:25am, jerry wrote:
RE: Re: How much "inspiration" is legal?
Bill wrote: The other issue you have are trademarks. A corporation can make certain rules or pieces of their game trademarked if they are the first to create it and no one else has used them yet.
In general, something is not a trademark unless they are using it in a way that identifies them or their product. Further, trademarks are a specific thing that identify the product, product line, or company, whether an image, slogan, title, or some combination of imagery that says "this product is made by this company" (or "for this line"). Rules cannot be trademarked; a piece of a game--that is, a physical piece, such as a special figurine--might be, if the piece is unique enough to identify that product or that company.
For example, I believe that Wizards of the Coast (now owned by Hasbro) has the motion of rotating a card right 180 degrees trademarked.
No, they haven't. You may be thinking of patents. The Magic patent on rotating cards appears to be fairly controversial, in the sense that it seems extremely unlikely that the patent would hold up in court, but nobody who would want to test this wants to take risk having to meet Hasbro in court. As far as I can tell, the patent has never been tested.
However, I believe that they must explicitly mention all trademarks on each product. So if the books you are taking these mechanics from do not have trademark information on them, then I believe that you are not in danger of violating the trademarks.
No, they don't have to explicitly mention trademarks. If what you take from the other product makes it look like your game is made/approved by them (or makes it look like your game is their game) then you are likely violating trademark.
If what you are taking from the other product does not make it look like your game is made or approved by them, then you are likely not violating trademark. If you think that trademark is even an issue, however, you'll want to consult a lawyer (which I am not). Trademark is a bigger pain than copyright.
If something is copyrighted, you can't use it (barring a license). However, copyrights cannot apply to titles or short phrases. (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ34.html)
If something is trademarked, you can't use it for trade, but you can use it for other purposes. For example, you can definitely say "this adventure works with GAME X" without any permission from the makers of game x, as long as you do so in a way that doesn't make people think the makers of game x have approved your adventure. Trademark is for identification, and if your product works with their product, you can say so using the identification that the consumer understands.
Patents are even more complex; my limited understanding is that game mechanics shouldn't technically be patentable. But even if that's true it doesn't mean you want to be the one to argue this to Hasbro.
Jerry
On 7/8/2006 at 9:55am, Gasten wrote:
RE: Re: How much "inspiration" is legal?
Oh My God! You're copx! You created the roguelike Tower of Doom, which later switched name to Warp Rogue! How cool! I've played almost every version! Wow, of all places, you come here :)
Gasten
On 7/8/2006 at 4:14pm, copx wrote:
RE: Re: How much "inspiration" is legal?
Gasten wrote:
Oh My God! You're copx! You created the roguelike Tower of Doom, which later switched name to Warp Rogue! How cool! I've played almost every version!
I am glad that you like my game.
On 7/9/2006 at 2:13pm, Veritas Games wrote:
RE: Re: How much "inspiration" is legal?
jerry wrote: my limited understanding is that game mechanics shouldn't technically be patentable
I assure you that they are. There is a huge patent classification system for games and toys, and those aren't limited to mechanical parts. Games are protected by utility patents. Game patents, however, most often will only be able to protect the entirety of a game (when taken as a whole) or very specific mechanics or objects. Why? It's not a limitation on patents. It is a limitation on games -- most games leverage a vast number of ideas from pre-existing games.
On 7/9/2006 at 3:42pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Re: How much "inspiration" is legal?
Hey! Everyone who's responded, this is not being handled in a way appropriate to the Forge.
Gaming culture is full of stupid blather about copyright and related matters that only persists because it keeps on being said. Do not permit this forum to become a venue for it.
Copx, your inquiry is a good one, but the best thing for you is to take a look at older threads here in this forum - their titles should be clear - and find the links to real legal and government websites which can answer your questions.
Perhaps someone can help by digging up some examples and linking to them here.
Best, Ron
On 7/9/2006 at 5:45pm, baron samedi wrote:
RE: Re: How much "inspiration" is legal?
I agree with Ron's comment.
Seek expert counsel for copyright issues. Working in the paralegal domain (I've won 5 lawsuits in Canada over the last 3 years, lost none), I would advise you to not seek legal counsel within Internet forums. Courts do not work from popular opinion or consensus, but by Common Law jurisprudence. Remember that the Warhammer franchise is not released under the terms of an Open Licence. Whether you are a large or small company makes no difference as far as copyright laws are concerned.
I suggest you seek legal advice if you believe an action can expose you to litigation. Do not base your legal position on "how others do it" or "believe how to do it". You would be astounded at how many OGL-based games possibly directly infringe elements of the Open Gaming Licence : Spycraft 2, Mutants & Masterminds and many others infringe it by mentioning copyrighted works (e.g. D20 compatibility), as do any Wiki-based RPG on the Web which adds any kind of Licence (e.g. Creative Commons) in addition to the OGL, which is exclusive and deliberately requires a work distributed under the OGL to be copyrighted and exclusively under OGL terms, excluding any others. Law is very complicated. Seek expert advice. It's costly, but litigation can be even more costly in lawyer fees plus penalties (if you loose a lawsuit), whether you win or not a lawsuit. By staying 100% on the side of the law, you minimize litigation fees.
A cheaper way is to become familiar yourself with copyright laws. Take a class in copyright Law at your local university. You can also search and read the full legislation about American copyright laws and the major jurisprudence about lawsuits featuring games and roleplaying games, which would be a start. If you are low on money, you may be eligible to public judicial insurance - contact your local government for directions and conditions.
My personal, free and non-legally binding suggestion : don't take any chances at all. In case of doubt, don't do it.
Goodluck!
Erick
On 7/9/2006 at 6:21pm, copx wrote:
RE: Re: How much "inspiration" is legal?
Ok, I think I got it. Seeking legal advice on the internet is not a good idea.
I did not contact a legal expert, because I do not expect to earn much from this commercial endeavour i.e. the attorney fees might well be higher than the earnings!
I will take baron samedi's advice and stop persuing this idea.
Thanks everyone!
On 7/9/2006 at 7:38pm, Thunder_God wrote:
RE: Re: How much "inspiration" is legal?
So long you attribute your inspiration and don't seek to make money from it, I think you could produce it for fun.,
On 7/9/2006 at 8:26pm, baron samedi wrote:
RE: Re: How much "inspiration" is legal?
Good luck with your project!
Erick
On 7/10/2006 at 2:03am, Veritas Games wrote:
RE: Re: How much "inspiration" is legal?
If you look on
http://www.veritasgames.net
in the Game Design section you will find glossary entries on copyright, patent, and trademark. These have links at the end of each to U.S. government sources concerning copyright and patents. There are lots of great resources on the net. I think the smartest thing is to ask a question, hear the answers, ask for official case law citations and government publications, and then make up your own mind whether that's enough or whether you need a lawyer.
NOLO makes a great line of self-help books on law that can help you with the basics of the law. Not everything requires a lawyer. Spend money on a lawyer when you are going to take a potentially expensive action. Don't spend money on a lawyer just for an initial inquiry if you can find the same exact answer in a NOLO book or on a government website for free or for a fraction of the cost.
Others may disagree with this. In my experience, it is a sound way to operate my business, by bringing in the lawyers for the stuff I need them for, and not for every little thing.
If you want to read some case law, let me know. It'll let you form your own opinion on the issues.
On 7/10/2006 at 11:59am, Justin D. Jacobson wrote:
RE: Re: How much "inspiration" is legal?
baron wrote:
You would be astounded at how many OGL-based games possibly directly infringe elements of the Open Gaming Licence : Spycraft 2, Mutants & Masterminds and many others infringe it by mentioning copyrighted works (e.g. D20 compatibility),
Ironically, this statement is wrong.
Thunder_God wrote:
So long you attribute your inspiration and don't seek to make money from it, I think you could produce it for fun.,
And this one is a minefield waiting for a false step.
I think the internet is fine for asking general questions and looking for general information. But when you've got a specific question about a specific project, there's really no substitute for inquiring with a genuine IP attorney. In most locales, it's not too hard to find one who will answer a few basic questions free of charge (in the hopes that you might ultimately become a client).
On 7/10/2006 at 1:48pm, Veritas Games wrote:
RE: Re: How much "inspiration" is legal?
Justin wrote:baron wrote:
You would be astounded at how many OGL-based games possibly directly infringe elements of the Open Gaming Licence : Spycraft 2, Mutants & Masterminds and many others infringe it by mentioning copyrighted works (e.g. D20 compatibility),
Ironically, this statement is wrong.
He's referring to the fact that M&M v. 1 used the phrase "d20-based" (I think that was the phrase). I would argue that phrases like "d6-based", "d10-based", and "d20-based" refer to the core die used, typically, and not to a specifical system. When I say a d6 based system I mean something like Champions, not the West End Games "D6 System". I think that M&M does not say "D20 System-based products", and so is arguably not referring to a trademark. However, I did a double take when I first saw that phrase too. So, I'd say that even if the claim is wrong, it is because Green Ronin chose a phrase which is probably not a trademark to refer indirectly to a trademark to skirt the OGL's prohibitions about claiming compatibility with other products.
On 7/10/2006 at 11:36pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Re: How much "inspiration" is legal?
All right, with Lee's post above, which gives an excellent resource for all of us, this thread has served its purpose.
I'm not especially pleased with the line-by-line nitpicknig and one-up-manship I'm continuing to see.
Given both of these points, I have decided to close this thread.
Best, Ron