Sorry if I'm repeating what has, by now, already been said on this; I'm just over a week behind in my reading of the Digest ... If you don't care about such legal ramblings, page down to the next append, wherein you're more likely to find Gloranthan content ;)
Stephen Martin replies to Brian Tickler about "fair use" of Glorantha and RQ:
> "Fair use" does not mean, and has never meant, publication for profit, in
> any industry.
I agree, but I think the point Brian was making had not to do with the copyright-law use of the term "fair use", but a more loosely-defined usage that he described in his post.
In response to Brian's example of Lotus 1-2-3 macros, Stephen responded:
> Lotus did not write the macros, so they don't
> own them.
True enough. But if I write a scenario for Glorantha using RQ rules, neither Chaosium nor Avalon Hill will own the scenario because they did not write it. The scenario and its copyright would belong to me.
I think the analogy with 1-2-3 is good. Lotus owned the interface to 1-2-3 and offered the macro language to customers (and vendors) to use to customise 1-2-3 spreadsheets. Lotus would never own any of the macros developed, but does own the means of creating the macros. Agreed? Avalon Hill owns the means of creating RQ-based RPG material, and Chaosium own the means of creating Gloranthan material. If I use both those means together to create my own RQ+Glorantha scenario, neither company would own it. I should be able to publish and sell that scenario to anyone, as long as I mention that the means for creating the scenario are owned by others (AH & C) and that certain words are trademarked ("Glorantha", frex). That should be it! I would have used (as fair use, to use Brian's term) what Chaosium and AH provided me in order to create a product of my own. Just like the Lotus case, isn't it?
Why should I need approval from anyone? I can write a Windows(tm) program and sell it all I want, with nary a peep from Microsoft. Now, if I want the backing of MS, or some words like "NT compliant" or somesuch on my product, I'll need Microsoft's cooperation or even blessing. I used MS products to create mine, I used MS APIs to create the look and feel of the product, in fact, none of the content can be said to be mine (Microsoft provides everything) _except_ what the product does, the logic. Each part of my creation is built up of parts supplied by Microsoft, yet they do not own my product. Strange, eh? Or, more to the point, each part of my creation is built up of parts supplied by Chaosium and Avalon Hill, yet they do not own my product. Strange, eh?
I think Brian's point was that when a game company sells an RPG, which by its very nature must be modified and enhanced to play, they are in effect selling an interface to a rules system (cf. operating system) and a world setting (cf. user interface). I cannot sell or resell either the rules or the world legally, but I can (or should be able to) sell products that use either the rules or the world or both.
The RPG industry has not addressed this issue, I think, because it's a much smaller industry than, say, computer software, and no one has really tried to produce much stuff outside the established channels. More often, you wanna publish AD&D stuff, you send it to TSR (now WotC, I suppose) and they publish it for you -- or you publish it on your own and sell poorly because you have no distribution channels or marketing. Or maybe you send it to a magazine like Dragon for the same reason. But I don't think the industry can stop you if you do want to publish (for a profit) stuff on your own, as long as you don't copy their (copyrighted) words in your product (such as spell descriptions or NPC stats from their stuff).
Just because I mention the words "Pavis" and "Zola Fel" and "Wokboth" or "Bladesharp" and "Sense Chaos" and "Spot Hidden" in my product should not mean that I cannot publish it (without permission)! In what other industry would I have such restrictions?
I agree with Brian that we need more discussion of this topic. Maybe some legal experts could chime in? Although, with no precedents in this area that I'm aware of, I think their guess is only slightly better than mine ...
Sorry for the long post ... Comments?
Michael
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael C. Morrison Santa Teresa Laboratory Phone (408)463-4706 IMS User Technology IBM Software Solutions Fax (408)463-3696 Lotus Notes ID: MCMORRIS at IBMUSM50 IBMLink: MORRISON_at_TORIBM IBM Mail Exchange: USIB47H4 at IBMMAIL or USIB4MCM at IBMMAIL X.400 Address: G=mcmgm; S=morrison; P=ibmmail; A=ibmx400; C=us - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
End of Glorantha Digest V4 #544
Powered by hypermail