Not sure I follow this. Surely, if a piece uses _both_ Glorantha and RQ, then (theoretically) _both_ Chaosium and AH get to sue you, not just the one whose copyright is (allegedly) the more bruised thereby. While I have no idea if AH would even remotely mind this being done by third parties, I think they'd probably hit the roof if _Chaosium_ did so, regardless of how just how "Gloranthan" it was, so I think they could in principle do the same with others too.
> Well, Greg Stafford and/or Chaosiumunequivocably own Glorantha, and can
> force ANYONE to cease and desist (except a strict periodical) if they
> wanted to.
The above parties indeed obviously own the Glorantha copyright (and trademark too, I think), but even the most anecdotal familiarity with intellectual property rights law (e.g, mine) suggests it's not all that unequivocable as to the practical implications of that are. See the Palladium/WotC, or TSR/RoleAids mudfights for illustrative legal shenanigans which demonstrate just how unclear the area is.
> "Fair use" does not mean, and has never meant, publication for profit, in
> any industry. I assume this is why fanzines are exempt -- they are not
> for profit.
I don't think that's relevant. For-profit publications, such as newspaper book reviews, certainly make "fair use" of copyright material. However, what is, or isn't "fair use" is an area I won't even pretend to understand, except that I'd be prepared to wager that the legal concept of "fair" is largely unrelated to the intuitive one.
BTW, what's "for profit", and what's not is another can of worms. If I publish a fanzine, and it loses a superfluity of money, that doesn't necessarily make it a not-for-profit endeavour. (Just a rather incompetent one, evidently.)
> Avalon Hill apparently tried to do the same thing with Tales. But your
> example is misleading -- Lotus did not write the macros, so they don't
> own them.
The point (I presume from context, without knowing the specifics) is that Lotus _did_ write (and copyright, trademark, and what have you) the 1-2-3 macro language (whatever that is), and so reckoned they (could get away with claiming that they) owned everything which was written in it, as it would necessarily refer to the concepts their macro language defines. And therefore, that they'd be "derivative works". This is (logically) much the same situation as if I, say, wrote an article about what a Babe (/Bitch, razor as appropriate) Jar-Eel is. I'm not substantially copying anything, just "referring" to concepts introduced in material under copyright. Is that a "derivative" work? Buggered if I know.
I don't think this necessarily actually _means_ anything for the situation at hand, though. Copyright law seems to be interpreted _wildly_ differently from medium to medium, and from domain to domain. One can only assume this is because it a) makes more lucre for the lawyers, and b) is established, for all practical purposes, to protect the vested commercial interests concerned, which are very different in different cases, and c) has very little to do with logic.
> However, the actual word Glorantha and all of its component
> parts are owned by Greg or Chaosium. Just as you can't publish a comic
> book starring Captain America without Marvel Comics' permission, you
> can't use Glorantha without permission.
Now, that _is_ a misleading example. Captain America is _trademarked_, which (say) Jar-Eel isn't. I could be sued for using the phrase
"Captain America" is a way that doesn't "acknowledge", or worse (gasp!) "challenges" said trademark status. I can't be sued for saying "Jor-Eel" in that way. Greg owns Said Poetess in the sense thathe holds the copyright on every (at least "official") word ever written on her, and so could (try to) make the case that anything substantial written about her is a "derivative work".
Ongoing disclaimer: I'm no more a lawyer than the last time I wrote such a disclaimer, and _none_ (not even an eeny-weeny li'l bit) of the above ought to be construed as advice to, or in any way encouragement of any, attempt to flout Chaosium approval policy, copyright, or Greg Stafford's sensibilities in any way. If anything, I'm trying to point out just how murky an area it all is, at least for us mere mortals, and hence well worth standing clear of.
In fact, if (hypothetically) I were going to issue any (free, and almost axoimatically, worthless) advice about publishing Gloranthan material, it'd _perhaps_ be something on these lines.
Do one of the following:-
All in all, I'd be betting on a).
Unqualifiedly,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail