Time to start dredging through every dictionary over the age of 50 and prying out fantastical monsters...Drooling Toothy Bag is right. The names of some of the monsters are only available to us via the OGL.
The imagery is our own, and is not Open Content (and neither are Wizards' images).
I hope that wasn't meant to be snarky. It's a completely legitimate license. Vic didn't say all names were protected by the OGL, just some names. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find names like Aboleth or Froghemoth in any dictionary ever, regardless of age.
|
I don't know some of those old menageries from middle ages include things that we consider mythological. It is possible that something we think is newly created has been around for a long time.
Damn right...Barghest comes from the protoindoeuropean word for Barrow. And it's a member of the Goblin Family like Pooka (the goblin that looks like a Horse). There is a completely different bestiary out there - waiting.
Oh I agree about that. Which is why I said some and Vic said some. I never questioned the Barghest or other mythical beasts, well-known or otherwise.
But not every creature in the game is from some ancient or lesser known myth or piece of folklore. Some creatures are purely made-up for the game; perhaps they're inspired by some old folktale but they're made-up nonetheless and with a made-up proper noun for a name to boot. That's what the license protects. You'll note I used Aboleth and Froghemoth as examples. I think it's pretty well-known at this point after 30+ years of gaming history that these particular two creatures, among others, are the creation of game designers.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know some of those old menageries from middle ages include things that we consider mythological. It is possible that something we think is newly created has been around for a long time.Damn right...Barghest comes from the protoindoeuropean word for Barrow. And it's a member of the Goblin Family like Pooka (the goblin that looks like a Horse). There is a completely different bestiary out there - waiting.
Good thing that 80% of stuff in Paizo bestiaries is either real world myth, cryptozoology or Old D&D Tradition(tm) inspired! The surprisingly low amount of "made up" monsters is a good thing.
I don't know some of those old menageries from middle ages include things that we consider mythological. It is possible that something we think is newly created has been around for a long time.
Or IIRC, in the case of the bullette and the rust monster, something we thought was a fantasy monster was actually some weird toy figurine bought in a dollar store that Arneson, Gygax, and co then gave stats. :)
Even if a lot of Paizo's stuff is real world derivative, if it was covered under the SRD, isn't Paizo bound by the OGL? Wasn't that part of the whole license agreement?
I don't understand your questions, Brian.
OK, so, the argument was made that 80% of Paizo's Bestiaries is either real world myth, cryptozoology or Old D&D Tradition.
What I'm asking or attempting to clarify is that, if you accepted the OGL, then you accept that those monsters in the SRD (that themselves are real world myth, cryptozoology or Old D&D Tradition) are WotC property licensed for perpetual use under the OGL, yes or no?
Or, are you allowed to make your own unicorn that's closed content?
OK, so, the argument was made that 80% of Paizo's Bestiaries is either real world myth, cryptozoology or Old D&D Tradition.
What I'm asking or attempting to clarify is that, if you accepted the OGL, then you accept that those monsters in the SRD (that themselves are real world myth, cryptozoology or Old D&D Tradition) are WotC property licensed for perpetual use under the OGL, yes or no?
Or, are you allowed to make your own unicorn that's closed content?
Are you talking about the Bestiary Box specifically or in general?
If all the monsters in the Bestiary Box were from myth, cryptozoology, or Paizo created, they wouldn't need to use the OGL, since they aren't duplicating any of the game stats created by WotC in the product or other rules elements. But to get access to the names of a few specific monsters that are only available via the OGL, they include the OGL.
But if you wanted to make a type of unicorn unique to their game world and declare it product identity, that's totally allowable under the OGL. In fact, there is nothing in the OGL that requires you to make new content open. Paizo is very generous in that respect.
OK, so, the argument was made that 80% of Paizo's Bestiaries is either real world myth, cryptozoology or Old D&D Tradition.
What I'm asking or attempting to clarify is that, if you accepted the OGL, then you accept that those monsters in the SRD (that themselves are real world myth, cryptozoology or Old D&D Tradition) are WotC property licensed for perpetual use under the OGL, yes or no?
Or, are you allowed to make your own unicorn that's closed content?
Wizards has a unicorn they released under the OGL. Using their unicorn means you're acknowledging that they created that version of the unicorn, it belongs to them, and you're given free license to use that version under the OGL.
However, Paizo (or you or me or anyone else) could create a different unicorn, and it would belong to the person who created it, and would be closed content (because it wasn't deliberately released under the OGL... it's closed unless it's declared Open). And if that person released it under the OGL, it would still belong to that person, but anyone could use that for free under the OGL.
The only right you give up when you make something OGL is the right to say "don't copy this." You can still say, "it's mine"... but that doesn't equate to "don't copy this, it's mine." They're two different things (there's an implied causal connection between the two, but the OGL unhooks them and makes them separate things).
So Paizo could have started from scratch and created its own stat blocks for dragons, gryphons, doppelgangers, unicorns, wolves, worgs, and so on, and published them in the Bestiary, and they wouldn't be Wizards property. And Paizo could add them all to the OGL, and they wouldn't be Wizards property. And yes, that would mean there'd be a Wizards unicorn and a Paizo unicorn available for free through the OGL. And they'd still belong to Wizards and Paizo, respectively. But that "ownership" wouldn't mean much in the Grand Scheme of Things because the OGL lets anyone use those stat blocks, and (because the original creatures are in the public domain) anyone could create other versions of unicorns and such and release them under the OGL (or not release them).
(Of course, Paizo didn't create its own versions of those things because we wanted PFRPG to be backwards-compatible with D&D 3.5, and making different versions of familiar monsters would be counter-productive to that plan.)
Basically, the OGL is a kind of "anyone can play with my toys, but they're still MY toys" sort of situation. But that doesn't prevent someone from creating another toy that's similar to MY toy. And just because that toy is similar to MY toy doesn't mean anyone can play with that toy... the owner of that toy still has to give permission for others to play with it.
|
|
Actually, according to the website of the U.S. Copyright Office, you can use the names of (most) of WotC's monsters without using the OGL:
Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases. In some cases, these things may be protected as trademarks. Contact the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office... for further information. However, copyright protection may be available for logo artwork that contains sufficient authorship. In some circumstances, an artistic logo may also be protected as a trademark.Beholders and a few other iconic WotC monsters probably qualify as trademarks of WotC. The names of OGL monsters, on the other hand, are now used by so many different publishers they can't possibly qualify as trademarks.
name of the monster =/= monster
name of the monster =/= monster
Exactly.
There's a big difference between a rules-light adventure that says "in the glade is corrupted unicorn, it attacks you!" and an adventure that says "... and here is its [D&D] stat block [copied from the SRD]."
Actually, according to the website of the U.S. Copyright Office, you can use the names of (most) of WotC's monsters without using the OGL:
Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases. In some cases, these things may be protected as trademarks. Contact the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office... for further information. However, copyright protection may be available for logo artwork that contains sufficient authorship. In some circumstances, an artistic logo may also be protected as a trademark.Beholders and a few other iconic WotC monsters probably qualify as trademarks of WotC. The names of OGL monsters, on the other hand, are now used by so many different publishers they can't possibly qualify as trademarks.
Even if you could grab just the name under possible fair use, the name Otyugh in combination with the specific description that gives rise to the picture they are using is definitely copyright-able.
Besides, why does it matter? The Pathfinder Core rules are built using the OGL. The monsters in the Bestiary are built using the OGL. It doesn't hurt Paizo any to include an OGL statement with the Bestiary Box means they are protected enough that it would never go to court. Even if a defense can be made, the remotest possibility that they would need to defend their decision is enough of a risk to make using the OGL a no brainer. The cost of including an OGL statement is less than one hour of a lawyer's court costs.
I'll be honest, I'm not exactly certain what the point of this conversation is. Is there some argument that the Bestiary Box would somehow be noticeably improved without the OGL?
"Owlbear" and "remorhaz" are names released under the OGL, too.
|
|
name of the monster =/= monsterTrue, but this thread is about the Bestiary Box. In that product, all that's being used is the name of the monster (plus original artwork). So legally speaking, the OGL wasn't required for that specific product (though it's nice that Piazo included the OGL as an acknowledgement of WotC's contribution to the game).
It was required. The name "Aboleth" is one bit of intellectual property, the "tentacled slimy fish monster" is another bit of intellectual property, the "artwork depicting tentacled slimy monster drawn by John Doe" is another bit of intellectual property and "tentacled slimy fish monster named Aboleth" is another bit of intellectual property. The latter is IP of WotC released under OGL, so if anybody wants to include artwork of tentacled slimy monsters called Aboleths in their product and does not fall under fair use then he/she must conform to the OGL.
If Paizo made a Bestiary Box with a pawn of "pink fluffy unicorn with wings called Aboleth" I guess they wouldn't have to use the OGL :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, if I were to make any product obviously related to an OGL game, I'd include the OGL just to be safe even I was sure it wasn't necessary. Better to be safe than sorry.
"Owlbear" and "remorhaz" are names released under the OGL, too.
Though it should be pointed out that the "remorhaz" is pretty obviously based on the "remora" from Andrew Lang's now public domain PRINCE PRIGIO.