I was going through the Final Fantasy Compendium the morning and I came across THIS.
Which made me wonder... Squares has used mindflayers over all these years. Would it be possible to argue that the IP of mindflayers is shared with Square meaning they could allow Paizo to develop these iconic monsters?
It's just a thought... what do you all think?
If you look at that list, you will see that the first US use of the name Mindflayer was in Final Fantasy Tactics, which had a US release of 1998. The only other use of the name in the US was in FF XII from 2006. I am guessing that TSR was behind the changing of the names in earlier games, but your guess as to why they decided to not change it in Tactics is as good as mine.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I am guessing that TSR was behind the changing of the names in earlier games, but your guess as to why they decided to not change it in Tactics is as good as mine.
It's significantly more likely that they changed the name due to Nintendo, and not TSR, in the early games given that Nintendo censored/changed a substantial portion of the dialogue/names in FF games. I don't think mind flayer would've made it past them.
As to why they've changed to mind flayer now, they probably figure the probability of getting sued is pretty low. Note that what makes the mind flayer off limits in the land of pen and paper rpgs is that when you use the OGL, you are agreeing not to use certain monsters which are retained by WotC - you couldn't even make the argument that your version of the mind flayer doesn't infring on WotC's copyright. Under the OGL, WotC would make is for breach of contract claim, which is easier to determine and enforce than a breach of copyright claim. Square/Enix doesn't use the OGL, so WotC would have to make the argument that their copyright is infringed, which is much more difficult (and far less certain).
|
Also, remember, we're talking Trademarks, not copyrights. A trademark essentially applies to your specific industry. For instance Owen Corning has the word Pink trademarked (referring to insulation). In fact a phrase can be trademarked by several different companies but in different markets. The question, then, have the courts previously already ruled that PnP RPGs is a different market from computer RPGs? Or does it apply to ALL entertainment industries?
For example I was a wedding photographer and ran afoul another company's trademark for Storybook Weddings. No prob, I had no problem dropping my usage. It was interesting to note that the same phrase was trademarked by a baker, a videographer and others related to weddings but fundamentally different markets.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'm not sure if we're talking trademarks though. Toylines frequently trademark all their character names, but I don't know if TSR/WotC had/have done that with regards to things like "mind flayer". Plus, if we're talking about trademarks, it's a little bit easier because they are typically registered with the patent and trademark office, so they're easy to search. That said, trademarks offer a very different type of protection. If I trademark the phrase "ponies rule" and use that to sell my own brand of custom made horse-flavored snack treats, that doesn't prevent you from using the phrase "ponies rule" in general or even to sell a different type of product. If "mind flayer" was trademarked, I believe it'd have to be tied to a particular product line. To the extent a videogame is outside of that product line or did not use the term "mind flayer" to identify and sell its products, the chances of infringing a trademark are much lower.
I think.
Want to see an even more weird thing ? Check this...
Apparently (IMHO), the trademark laws in Japan are different than in other nations (as you can see from the Wiki, the 'Coeurl' name is more common in the JP version than in the NA version).
EDIT: Either that, or 20+ years of Final Fantasy passed unnoticed by the Van Vogt family...
This probably relates also to the 'Resident Evil/Biohazard' trademark name. The saga is named 'Biohazard' in Japan, but when exporting the game, they had to change the name because of the Biohazard band. The whole Resident Evil/Biohazard name is explained here:
from Wikipedia:
"Title change
The game was originally called Biohazard in Japan. However it was decided to change the name in the US and Europe after Chris Kramer, the Director of Communications at Capcom, pointed out that it would be impossible to trademark "Biohazard" in the US. Among others, another game and a band already were using the name. Capcom therefore decided to run a contest within its company to find a new name. They eventually settled on Resident Evil, since the game takes place in a mansion. Interviewed by GamesRadar, Chris Kramer said:
'I thought it was super-cheesy; can’t remember what I felt was a better alternative, probably something stupid about zombies – but the rest of the marketing crew loved it and were ultimately able to convince Capcom Japan and Mikami-san that the name fit.' "
Would it be possible to argue that the IP of mindflayers is shared with Square meaning they could allow Paizo to develop these iconic monsters?
It's just a thought... what do you all think?
Mind Flayer = Cthulhu minus wings, with a leather fetish.
Odds are Final Fantasy simply outright stole the idea, and it wasn't seen as something worth or even possible to go after at the time.
I think Paizo could do something much more interesting than the mind flayer, which, sadly, is rarely illustrated or described with the level of horror that such a Lovecraftian being should command.
Which made me wonder... Squares has used mindflayers over all these years. Would it be possible to argue that the IP of mindflayers is shared with Square meaning they could allow Paizo to develop these iconic monsters?
Doesn't work.
The Open Game License only allows Paizo to use the SRD as long as they respect WotC's declarations of Product Identity in the SRD. The SRD specifically names mind flayers as Product Identity in the file Legal.rtf
Therefore, no Paizo product may, simultaneously, be derived from the SRD under the terms of the OGL and include mind flayers. This applies even if the mind flayers are independently licensed from Square.
|
The Ochuls started off as straight Otyughs as well.
Also, Kary, Fiend of Fire, was totally a marilith.(and lets not lie to ourselves about where they got Lich's name from ;) )
A lot of western-flavored Japanese fantasy stuff borrowed liberally from D&D. Heck, if it wasn't for D&D, we wouldn't have Lodoss War at all. Heck, wasn't there a beholder in Bastard?
|
|
Every penny (or second) wasted on trying to fight for the right to use Mind Flayers is a penny (or second) that can't be put towards putting out the already-awesome stuff Paizo is doing. I can't speak for how many pennies they have to spare, but I'm pretty darn sure that the Paizo staff needs every second they can spare to focus on product that they won't have to fight someone else for the right to release.
I love the Mind Flayers (way more than the Seugathi / Intellect Devourers / etc.), and Displacer Beasts as well, but I've accepted that neither critter will be appearing in any Pathfinder products.
It's not like I can't pick up my 3.5 Monster Manual and use either critter to my hearts content, anyway. Just add a CMB and CMD line, and it's combat-ready. The only thing that the WotC IP does is stop Paizo from printing such a thing, it does exactly bupkiss to stop us from using them (or Warlocks, or Changelings, or Urgastata, or Graz'zt) in our games, so long as nobody pokes the 800 lb. gorilla in the RPG industry by publishing such converted material or posting a bunch of it here on the Paizo boards (and creating the impression that Paizo is okay with people ripping off Hasbro IP).
Which made me wonder... Squares has used mindflayers over all these years. Would it be possible to argue that the IP of mindflayers is shared with Square meaning they could allow Paizo to develop these iconic monsters?Doesn't work.
The Open Game License only allows Paizo to use the SRD as long as they respect WotC's declarations of Product Identity in the SRD. The SRD specifically names mind flayers as Product Identity in the file Legal.rtf
Therefore, no Paizo product may, simultaneously, be derived from the SRD under the terms of the OGL and include mind flayers. This applies even if the mind flayers are independently licensed from Square.
Honestly, I started this thread with a questions about copyrights. My company is approaching square-enix about a tabletop of Final Fantasy, and in porting the monsters, I would be in the same position as Paizo. This does make sense, and I wouldn't want to seem like I'd encourage Paizo to enrage Hasbro (although Paizo has the better product IMHO dead to rights).
It makes sense that in order to use WotC's skeletal structure you have to adhere to their IP rights... thanks for all the responses.
Which made me wonder... Squares has used mindflayers over all these years. Would it be possible to argue that the IP of mindflayers is shared with Square meaning they could allow Paizo to develop these iconic monsters?Doesn't work.
The Open Game License only allows Paizo to use the SRD as long as they respect WotC's declarations of Product Identity in the SRD. The SRD specifically names mind flayers as Product Identity in the file Legal.rtf
Therefore, no Paizo product may, simultaneously, be derived from the SRD under the terms of the OGL and include mind flayers. This applies even if the mind flayers are independently licensed from Square.
Honestly, I started this thread with a questions about copyrights. My company is approaching square-enix about a tabletop of Final Fantasy, and in porting the monsters, I would be in the same position as Paizo. This does make sense, and I wouldn't want to seem like I'd encourage Paizo to enrage Hasbro (although Paizo has the better product IMHO dead to rights).
It makes sense that in order to use WotC's skeletal structure you have to adhere to their IP rights... thanks for all the responses.
which final fantasy game?
the main classes you will need are white mage, black mage, and thier few prestige classes. most of the other classes can be stolen from dungeons and dragons and pretty much are.
white mage, squishy staff wielding healer, every party needs one, will outshine black mage by games end. any prestige class it gets allow it to outshine the black mage in thier own job.
Black mage; elemental damage, and debuffs. starts powerful, but becomes weaker with each chapter until games end where they become useless. any involved prestige classes will make it more useless even faster. as they are taxes for very few useful new spells.
a lot of final fantasy classes were d&d rippoffs, of classes by the same name, concept or similar name or concept.
It makes sense that in order to use WotC's skeletal structure you have to adhere to their IP rights...
Yep.
The sorts of things you can do under the OGL/SRD, and the sorts of things you can do under pure IP law without WotC permission, overlap at some points but are not identical. The result is that the legal questions around a theoretical "Pathfinder: Final Fantasy — Mind Flayers", and, say, a theoretical "GURPS: Final Fantasy — Mind Flayers" are very, very different.
|
|
Which made me wonder... Squares has used mindflayers over all these years. Would it be possible to argue that the IP of mindflayers is shared with Square meaning they could allow Paizo to develop these iconic monsters?if you don't use d20 rules for whatever you are doing then you have a LOT more freedom to approach the Mind Flayer. If you are using d20 rules then you really are required to not use the Mind Flayer. You can derive a simlar creature to fill that niche but it should be substantially different.
It still does not make you immune to lawsuits. And it doesn't matter if you ultimately win if you go bankrupt first.
Besides Paizo has flatly said they wil not use the Mind Flayer at all
I wonder if adding the phrenic template to the abollar template and publishing it, would seem an infringement.
|
I think it is easy enough to come up with alternatives to mind flayers -- there are several such as aboleths and intellect devourers that are not WotC properties. In Monte Cook's Legacy of the Dragons, he had an interesting race descended from humans who lived underground. They used magic that mirrored biotechnology to grow weapons and armor.