jburneko wrote: 3) A lot of people seem to like to spoof existing D&D products. For example, Raven mentioned working on The Temple of Elfmental Evil? Would it even be LEGAL for him to put up his conversion for sale?

Parody is a completely protected form of derivative work under US copyright laws. Note how even the James Bond franchise holders were unable to stop "Austin Powers' Goldmember" despite throwing insane amounts of money and lawyers at it.

So, if you have any trouble with WotC about anything you produce for Elfs based on old TSR modules, have a friendly local lawyer pen them a letter about how your creation is "specifically protected as a work of parody under US copyright laws." That may not stop them, but on the other hand, it may. Expect the initial scare tactics (ie: a cease & desist letter).

However, I don't work for WotC and none of this is legal advice. To bone up on copyright and parody, you can check out Publaw on Parody, James Huggins' list of links and consult a local copyright attorney.

If you do get the initial cease & desist, calling on the UCLA for help with First Amendment protection is always a good card to play.

Now, to those of you writing parody of old modules, pay particular attention to the following: "What is the degree of transformation from the purpose or function of the copyrighted work as compared to the purpose or function of the new work? This criterion analyzes the degree of transformation accomplished by the new work by determining whether the new work has a different purpose or different character than that of the original copyrighted work. For example, does a parody accomplish a transformative purpose by adding something entirely new to the copyrighted work or does the new work only supplant the original copyrighted work?"

And this: "The court held that because the book ridiculed Simpson and the murder case, rather than the original work or its author, it is not a true parody eligible for the fair use defense...

This decision is significant because it has clarified a coherent standard in copyright law for determining whether a potentially infringing work is a fair use parody. A parodist must ridicule the original composition or author in order for fair use to apply."

And this is from Stanford:
"A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way. Judges understand that by its nature, parody demands some taking from the original work being parodied. Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to "conjure up" the original."

Rod Anderson wrote: Where a for-sale product is concerned, I think it would be reasonable if you wrote up your own adventure and included parodic references to well-known modules as grace notes.

Actually, Rod, if my understanding of parody and copyright is secure, that could get you in even more trouble than doing a straight parody, since you wouldn't have the parody defense in this case*, and thus the company could easily go after you for unauthorized use of their materials (even in reference).

So, in this case, your point-by-point send-up of Tamochan would likely be less likely to be sued/more likely to win a lawsuit than occasional references to modules in parody -- *parody requires substantial borrowing from an existing work, which is why it is defined as parody and not just "funny/humor/ha-ha."

(To make the "What is parody?" issue even more complex, Elfs counts as parody even though it isn't parodying a specific written item -- it is parodying the behavior of a subculture)

However, parody items created not-for-profit are always given more leeway in the courts than items created for profit, so one could possibly get away with parody-by-way-of-reference in a work distributed free of charge.