Therefore, I can see no reason why these words used in a module would infringe copyright. Unless I cannot search the trademark database well enough, then I cannot find any trademarks for the above creatures in the US trademark database, let alone in the name of WotC. The only hit I found was for ‘Beholder’ –but this was not actually a WotC trademark but rather seemed to be about computers programs etc, see: /bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4001:qogha3.7.2) I found **no** hits for Balhannoth, Carrion Crawler, Displacer Beast, Gauth, Githyanki, Githzerai, Kuo-Toa, Mind Flayer, Illithid, Slaad, Umber Hulk’ and Yuan-Ti. searched here /bin/gate.exe?f=searchstr&state=4001:qogha3.3.1), but it is possible I was looking in the wrong place? Just tried to check the US trademark database (i.e. Maybe just protection in the context of RPG gaming? However, ‘Mind Flayer’ is a little more distinctive and maybe they can get broader protection. Therefore trademarks are easy to determine – you can just look them up.ĭoes anyone know if WotC have registered the monster names such as beholder as trademarks? It seems a little unlikely that WotC can have blanket protection for the word ‘beholder’ as they cannot have a monopoly on the phrase ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’.
#Eye of the beholder maps and walkthru registration#
To get a trademark you need to pay money to get the trademark registered, and this has the benefit that you can look that trademark up (and even note for example if the registration has lapsed). These are therefore two very different intellectual property rights and one needs to be very strict when referring to what rights we are talking about.īelow, I have tried to consider these two IP rights separately with respect to WotC Another important distinction is that copyright exists automatically and does *not* need to be registered. Copyright is not like a brand name, it protects artistic works like drawings, paintings and literary works. names like Coca-Cola (and their logos) and these trademarks must be registered to exist (i.e.
Trademarks cover things like brand names, e.g. To my mind, it appears that CBDunkerson is on the correct tack.įirstly, before any analysis can be made, a clear distinction needs to be made between trademarks and copyright (they are quite different). However, the solution adopted by D&D all those years ago also applies… just change the names.
They are argued to be representative of the ‘D&D brand’ and thus use of those monster names by others would be like a new soft drink copying Coca-Cola’s logo… improperly trading on the reputation of the other brand to improve their own sales. The various ‘iconic monsters’ are the same issue. TSR did a quick rewrite to ‘halflings’, ‘treants’, ‘wraiths’, ‘balor’, and so forth to avoid violating trademark (not copyright) on the specific creature names. Zaentz, who had acquired the rights to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, sued TSR claiming infringement for ‘hobbits’, ‘ents’, ‘nazgul’, ‘balrogs’, and various other things. “Actually, it is impossible to ‘copyright’ a fantasy race… as first established in the very Tolkien Enterprises (aka Saul Zaentz) vs TSR suit you refer to. However, I found this post by CBDunkerson who might be a good candidate to have on the show to discuss this matter (CBDunkerson wrote this /threads/rzs2nv0p?Beholders-Do-they-exist-in-Pathfinder#19): Reading through various posts on the net there appears to be quite a lot of confusion surrounding this matter. I wonder is there any chance you can get a guest speaker on the show to discuss the Wizards of the Coast’s IP rights and how these impact of the publication of things like modules? In your podcast you discussed IP rights in RPG gaming, in particular to the possibility of publishing a module with certain underdark critters, and how this publication might be impacted by the IP rights that have been asserted by Wizards of the Coast (WotC).
0 kommentar(er)
