|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Raynulf wrote: Nothing is final until it's a legal document... Well, the link goes to a document that is legally 'published' according to US copyright law.
Quote: Here's a PDF of SRD 5.1 with the Creative Commons license. By simply publishing it, we place it under an irrevocable Creative Commons license.[/url]
So that much is final.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Dragon Nexus Games wrote: Celebrate the victory of today but be vigilant (not vigilante) and on-guard for a future re-occurance. Businesses ALWAYS repeat mistakes by the phenomenon of "institutional memory loss" (just like governments). This happens because when their in a change over of leadership and staffing, things are forgotten over time.
No business is immune as long as they exist in perpetuity.
The Raven Black wrote: I think they are trying to make the ORC stillborn.
People in the ORC Horde, keep strong and do not falter. The future of our hobby is in your hands.
And the solution is for creators to license their works under the ORC license rather than any license controlled by a corporation. Paizo has made it clear that they will continue to lead that effort
Aaron Shanks wrote: We welcome today’s news from Wizards of the Coast regarding their intention not to de-authorize OGL 1.0a. We still believe there is a powerful need for an irrevocable, perpetual independent system-neutral open license that will serve the tabletop community via nonprofit stewardship. Work on the ORC license will continue, with an expected first draft to release for comment to participating publishers in February.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Dancing Wind wrote: [QUOTE="Dragon Nexus Games"Celebrate the victory of today but be vigilant (not vigilante) and on-guard for a future re-occurance. Businesses ALWAYS repeat mistakes by the phenomenon of "institutional memory loss" (just like governments). This happens because when their in a change over of leadership and staffing, things are forgotten over time.
No business is immune as long as they exist in perpetuity.
The Raven Black wrote: I think they are trying to make the ORC stillborn.
People in the ORC Horde, keep strong and do not falter. The future of our hobby is in your hands.
And the solution is for creators to license their works under the ORC license rather than any license controlled by a corporation.
I agree. The current OGL news regarding 1.0a at least allows Paizo to release their current stuff with a free errata sheet that provides a optional choice dual license where people can choose OGL 1.0a or ORC license and new editions be ORC. In the open source software, we done dual license. Which is appropriate for transition period. TPPs can then do likewise for existing releases of their work. Then use ORC on future editions.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Excellent news. Of course it'll be interesting to see if the ORC goes anywhere now.
This is wonderful. Glad to see it, especially after seeing 3rd party publishers posting things like "we lost" and "RIP Pathfinder 1st edition" just earlier today.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The treachery of Hasbro and Wotc will always be remembered by this community. Anywho...
#PaizoORC Paizo's statement blog on ORC is getting framed in my study. Paizo is my home now, too. I've just been blessed with overtime at work, and proceeds are going to the ORC Alliance. God bless Paizo. Long live the gamers and TTRPG content providers of the ORC Alliance; Keep making beautiful, ghastly, and wonderful things.
You have initiative.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
ShadowcatX wrote: This is wonderful. Glad to see it, especially after seeing 3rd party publishers posting things like "we lost" and "RIP Pathfinder 1st edition" just earlier today. Luckily enough, it would not necessarily stopped PF1E because Paizo can re-release with a different license. It's the third-party and other games that were licensed using this system but the game's publishers are no more and tracking the people who may have the rights to change the license.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote: Paul Ryan wrote: Good news at this point, but I won't be surprised if this all happens again two more D&D editions down the road... Copyright law is primarily statutory, and I believe that the statute has the OGL 1.0a expiring in 2035 if not renewed. Since it's a perpetual license all the stuff published before then is in the clear but something would need to be done to let post-2035 material use it I believe. It is the copyright on the license that expires, not the license itself. That just means that WotC loses a bit of protection against shenanigans that other companies might do with their own slight variations on OGL 1.0a in the public domain. WotC would probably be on better legal ground than they were on their de-authorization attempt to claim that any version of the OGL that did not originate with WotC was never authorized for the purposes referenced in OGL 1.0a. Everyone else wanting to publish their own open license should be on solid ground as long as they do not try to claim that their license has anything to do with that OGL.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
magnuskn wrote: Excellent news. Of course it'll be interesting to see if the ORC goes anywhere now. Only the urgency to get something out ASAP should go away. Paizo and its many partners should take the extra time they now have to slowly and carefully put together the best open license that they can.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
ORC should, ABSOLUTELY, continue and grow. WotC tried and lost this time, but fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The Raven Black wrote: Arssanguinus wrote: Once you’ve tried to stab me in my back, you don’t get to say oops my bad. Indeed.
First rule of OGL-cide : do not miss. Don’t pick a fight with someone who buys dice by the barrel.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
magnuskn wrote: Excellent news. Of course it'll be interesting to see if the ORC goes anywhere now. I think even if the OGL is safe, that doesn't mean WotC won't find other ways to milk the DnD brand dry. I'd expect it to be more likely that a 6E will be less backward compatible, and they probably won't allow any other company to make 6E products. I'd imagine there are also some other future business plans (They have almost certainly thought about Microtransactioning DnD via virtual tabletops) which might hurt the market.
I think its still probably better for everyone to sign onto the ORC effort and keep doing what they are doing, rather than potentially tie themselves to a sinking ship or worry about what the next clueless executive has planned 5 years down the road.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
David knott 242 wrote: PossibleCabbage wrote: Paul Ryan wrote: Good news at this point, but I won't be surprised if this all happens again two more D&D editions down the road... Copyright law is primarily statutory, and I believe that the statute has the OGL 1.0a expiring in 2035 if not renewed. Since it's a perpetual license all the stuff published before then is in the clear but something would need to be done to let post-2035 material use it I believe. It is the copyright on the license that expires, not the license itself. That just means that WotC loses a bit of protection against shenanigans that other companies might do with their own slight variations on OGL 1.0a in the public domain. WotC would probably be on better legal ground than they were on their de-authorization attempt to claim that any version of the OGL that did not originate with WotC was never authorized for the purposes referenced in OGL 1.0a. Everyone else wanting to publish their own open license should be on solid ground as long as they do not try to claim that their license has anything to do with that OGL.
Yes, the copyright expires at some point but copyrights, in the U.S. are not renewed like trademarks. They maybe extended but they are not renewed.
The copyright on the license text is post-1978 by quite a bit. Copyrights from pre-1978 but not yet in public domain may have a renewal mechanism.
"For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first." ( https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html )
Basically, copyrights own by businesses are subject to the above. Copyrighted works ownership retained by the author(s)/creator(s)/artist(s) would be subject to the following:
"As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years." - author here means not just book authors but artists of all types. Copyright office and Congress intends a liberal meaning as the context of what the copyrighted work so it's defined more liberally than a typical dictionary definition may be. It is so they can be less verbose with the statutes than they would otherwise have been.
So from when OGL 1.0a was published, we are looking at to the end of 2090. 1-1-2091 being the when the license's copyright expires and it enters public domain. This is not the date the copyright expires on the work that is being licensed. Early Pathfinder periodicals begins to expire in 2097 and Pathfinder 1e game, in 2099. Pathfinder 2e (expiration beginning in 2108) and Starfinder (expiration beginning in 2107). Stuff published today would expire in 2113 for copyrighted works owned by companies. Works owned by author (but licensed and published directly or by a publisher), they expire 70 years after death of author(s). Works by multiple authors may last until 70 years after the death of the last surviving author. That can be quite awhile from now.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Apparently, the SRD that was published under Creative Commons mentions beholders, slaads, and mind flayers (although it doesn't include stat blocks).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this mean that Paizo could include their own versions of these creatures in Pathfinder and in Golarion, as long as they give proper attribution to the Creative Commons license?
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Heymitch wrote: Apparently, the SRD that was published under Creative Commons mentions beholders, slaads, and mind flayers (although it doesn't include stat blocks).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this mean that Paizo could include their own versions of these creatures in Pathfinder and in Golarion, as long as they give proper attribution to the Creative Commons license?
The word beholder isn't sufficiently unique. If your own implementations are unique then you might not even have to attribute. However, if its characteristics is reasonably derivative then, yes, attribution. You can bypass some of the issue of some of the races like Slaad by making a race called... say Enkians and depict them as frog like humanoids with a tail. Enkian with a frog-like god named Enki or Kek.
For the Illithids or mind flayers, we can rename them and reference and build a race drawing from H.P. Lovecraft's Cthulu. Since that's their source of inspiration to begin with, and is public domain. So even Cthulu may become public domain. However, Chaosium trademarking may get into an issue. So, you can merely come up with a new name. You may adapt a name from taking the latin word for octopus or squid or limilar ancient names and adapt it. The mere characteristics of Cthulu (for example) as described by Lovecraft's written work can be used as a source.
WotC may have decided to might not worth it to fight it too much.
Will your law firm be working with creators to help them make sure what they publish stays firmly within the Creative Commons license?
It's very kind of you to give free legal advice here on the forums, but I suspect that at some point you'll want to get paid.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Dancing Wind wrote: Will your law firm be working with creators to help them make sure what they publish stays firmly within the Creative Commons license? I myself and business is not a lawyer/law firm. However I have familiarity with the IP laws.
There are lawyers that may be interested in helping to thread the legal needle. Some are already into RPG. Lovecraft's work and the years since his death is presumingly reaching a point where the work falls into public domain and so to be inspired by his work can lead to your own depiction. You can add elements into a depiction that wasn't in his or even in WotC or Chaosium's depiction of say Mind Flayers and Cthulu.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The key is think your way around carbon copying what may be copyrighted depictions or derivatives of such. Maybe you redefine stat attributes and powers as well. It's up to you to think it out so its not too close. With some of this, I may think of some things for these races in my game project I am working on and make them potentially open game content or equivalent section in ORC so it can potentially be usable with Pathfinder/Starfinder. So it would nor be something that I'll probably note attribution to inspirational elements with respect to these other works yet they are also distinct enough from sources of inspirations.
Dragon Nexus Games wrote: Dancing Wind wrote: Will your law firm be working with creators to help them make sure what they publish stays firmly within the Creative Commons license? I myself and business is not a lawyer/law firm. However I have familiarity with the IP laws.
There are lawyers that may be interested in helping to thread the legal needle. Some are already into RPG. Lovecraft's work and the years since his death is presumingly reaching a point where the work falls into public domain and so to be inspired by his work can lead to your own depiction. You can add elements into a depiction that wasn't in his or even in WotC or Chaosium's depiction of say Mind Flayers and Cthulu. So, specifically, how long do we have remaining to wait before we can have a Pastafaraian Azathoth?
I hope someone with strong legal abilities can explain what the consequences of the lich's (my new nickname for WotC) decision are.
Because I completely trust them to not give anything of value and to keep on trying to get cash domination on anything DnD-related.
The resistance won the first battle. Not that sure about the war itself.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
David knott 242 wrote: magnuskn wrote: Excellent news. Of course it'll be interesting to see if the ORC goes anywhere now. Only the urgency to get something out ASAP should go away. Paizo and its many partners should take the extra time they now have to slowly and carefully put together the best open license that they can.
I think Paizo and the other ORC promoters should actually speed up their timetable and keep the whole of the horde engaged.
The worst that can now happen would be that 3PPs feel safe from the lich's predatory practices and stop caring about the ORC.
Which is likely a big part of why WotC took their decision so quickly.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Dragon Nexus Games wrote: Heymitch wrote: Apparently, the SRD that was published under Creative Commons mentions beholders, slaads, and mind flayers (although it doesn't include stat blocks).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this mean that Paizo could include their own versions of these creatures in Pathfinder and in Golarion, as long as they give proper attribution to the Creative Commons license?
The word beholder isn't sufficiently unique. If your own implementations are unique then you might not even have to attribute. However, if its characteristics is reasonably derivative then, yes, attribution. You can bypass some of the issue of some of the races like Slaad by making a race called... say Enkians and depict them as frog like humanoids with a tail. Enkian with a frog-like god named Enki or Kek.
For the Illithids or mind flayers, we can rename them and reference and build a race drawing from H.P. Lovecraft's Cthulu. Since that's their source of inspiration to begin with, and is public domain. So even Cthulu may become public domain. However, Chaosium trademarking may get into an issue. So, you can merely come up with a new name. You may adapt a name from taking the latin word for octopus or squid or similar ancient names and adapt it. The mere characteristics of Cthulu (for example) as described by Lovecraft's written work can be used as a source.
WotC may have decided to might not worth it to fight it too much. I just reworked the naming for a frog/toad like humanoid race (Salientiaurians) with a tail for the game and such and drafting up a background. I may outright make it essentially "open game content" - ideally with some ideal of not breaking canon of story background but that story background would be shared enough. Before employing it in publishing, I'll want to make sure a basic story canon is there in part.
I am also thinking of various species variants that can be many.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The Raven Black wrote: David knott 242 wrote: magnuskn wrote: Excellent news. Of course it'll be interesting to see if the ORC goes anywhere now. Only the urgency to get something out ASAP should go away. Paizo and its many partners should take the extra time they now have to slowly and carefully put together the best open license that they can.
I think Paizo and the other ORC promoters should actually speed up their timetable and keep the whole of the horde engaged.
The worst that can now happen would be that 3PPs feel safe from the lich's predatory practices and stop caring about the ORC.
Which is likely a big part of why WotC took their decision so quickly. I think Paizo running out of books is another part of the reason for the sudden turnaround from the lich, they're trying to get people back before the next book shipment in April.
I think the outcome of ORC will show how much damage they have done long-term with 3PPs trust, and book sales in April will show how willing players are to forgive the lich or not.
The lich is hoping ending the OGL fight will end a constant new cycle of bad PR them. If news on ORC comes soon enough, it will help fill the news cycle to keep people from forgetting.
Will be interesting watching the fallout of all of this to see where the pieces land.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Project black flag and mcdm rpg also would want to maintain momentum for their own upcoming games. I hope the non dnd publishers can coordinate to keep all of the alternatives in the news cycle.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
It's still a threat that they haven't officially made 1.0a irrevocable (only said they're "not touching it" in a social media post). Until that happens, the lich can pull the rug out from any publisher still using that OGL.
That's one reason we still need the ORC license.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Maybe I'm missing something legal here, but the ORC license doesn't really fix the whole problem. It gives creators access to new material published under it, which is definitely good, but it doesn't give access to the WotC SRD material or anything derived from it, which touches a lot of games. WotC killing the OGL 1.0a would still be a huge disruption.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Dragon Nexus Games wrote: I myself and business is not a lawyer/law firm. Good to know that what you post is not actually based on any legal training and can't be relied on as legal advice.
There are a lot of us creators on these boards who are "familiar with the IP laws". As I stated earlier, I've been using CC licenses on my creative work since 2005.
But what you post so confidently is simply "something someone who is not a lawyer said on the internet" in the end. It might be useful to post such a disclaimer when you give advice.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
The Raven Black wrote: David knott 242 wrote: magnuskn wrote: Excellent news. Of course it'll be interesting to see if the ORC goes anywhere now. Only the urgency to get something out ASAP should go away. Paizo and its many partners should take the extra time they now have to slowly and carefully put together the best open license that they can.
I think Paizo and the other ORC promoters should actually speed up their timetable and keep the whole of the horde engaged.
The worst that can now happen would be that 3PPs feel safe from the lich's predatory practices and stop caring about the ORC.
Which is likely a big part of why WotC took their decision so quickly. A good summary of what I was saying is that Paizo and its allies should work on the ORC license as fast as possible but no faster, as they no longer need to sacrifice quality for speed. I think this effort will be fine as long as visible progress is being made. Remember that Paizo mentioned that they would release material with no license until ORC is ready -- that tells me that they are anticipating it taking a while.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The first draft is still slated for February, so the starting line for this will be coming pretty soon. However, it's a starting line for a marathon, and I'd imagine all the publishers contributing to the ORC license will have a lot of conversations and compromises they'll need to work through throughout the year.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Dancing Wind wrote: Dragon Nexus Games wrote: I myself and business is not a lawyer/law firm. Good to know that what you post is not actually based on any legal training and can't be relied on as legal advice.
There are a lot of us creators on these boards who are "familiar with the IP laws". As I stated earlier, I've been using CC licenses on my creative work since 2005.
But what you post so confidently is simply "something someone who is not a lawyer said on the internet" in the end. It might be useful to post such a disclaimer when you give advice. Rule #1: Never depend on what anyone says on an internet/web forum as legal advice. Always consult with an attorney qualified by educational specialization or experience for the subject area of law that is verified to be an attorney in the geographical & legal jurisdiction of practice [in cases under U.S. laws --- be it state, licensed in that state or in federal court cases - licenses in the federal level. In cases in other countries, be licensed to practiced in their respective jurisdiction and courts]. Note: Not all attorneys are equal. IP law is a specialized area most lawyers you may find listed are not as qualified to practice that area of law.
Bottom line: Check and verify the validity of what someone writes with a lawyer where appropriate or if validated by high credible sources such as the U.S. copyright office, but even then they should consult an attorney especially with cases that are less cut and dry and more nuanced or where other laws may come into the picture.
What I may wrote is grounded on the basis of copyright law in the U.S., as written. There are other countries and the laws may be different on details of how the laws are written word by word, sentence by sentence. If something is in public domain then there is no copyright protection for that something which is in public domain. That's basic principles even from the U.S. Copyright office.
However, there may be issues with stuff like those stuff registered as trademarks. However, they can be craftfully worked around without using trademarked words and trademarks are not for the same purpose and type of coverage as for copyrights.
What the law says is what the law says. Only in corrupt courts with corrupt judges interprets laws in a manner so opposite of what the words mean by statutory definitions or by any regular dictionary definitions.
We seen some weird stuff in fairly recent years. That is why they can be challenged and ultimately corrected.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Dragon Nexus Games wrote: Dancing Wind wrote: Dragon Nexus Games wrote: I myself and business is not a lawyer/law firm. Good to know that what you post is not actually based on any legal training and can't be relied on as legal advice.
There are a lot of us creators on these boards who are "familiar with the IP laws". As I stated earlier, I've been using CC licenses on my creative work since 2005.
But what you post so confidently is simply "something someone who is not a lawyer said on the internet" in the end. It might be useful to post such a disclaimer when you give advice. Rule #1: Never depend on what anyone says on an internet/web forum as legal advice. Always consult with an attorney qualified by educational specialization or experience for the subject area of law that is verified to be an attorney in the geographical & legal jurisdiction of practice [in cases under U.S. laws --- be it state, licensed in that state or in federal court cases - licenses in the federal level. In cases in other countries, be licensed to practiced in their respective jurisdiction and courts]. Note: Not all attorneys are equal. IP law is a specialized area most lawyers you may find listed are not as qualified to practice that area of law.
((--SNIPPED --)) Before doing something legally relying on what anyone says or write on this forum or any forum on the internet, take that time to consult a lawyer - in this case one that is specializing in intellectual property laws. You may not have to do it now but do so before you rely on it. If the lawyer affirms it then you are relying on the attorney's advice.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The Raven Black wrote: David knott 242 wrote: magnuskn wrote: Excellent news. Of course it'll be interesting to see if the ORC goes anywhere now. Only the urgency to get something out ASAP should go away. Paizo and its many partners should take the extra time they now have to slowly and carefully put together the best open license that they can.
I think Paizo and the other ORC promoters should actually speed up their timetable and keep the whole of the horde engaged.
The worst that can now happen would be that 3PPs feel safe from the lich's predatory practices and stop caring about the ORC.
Which is likely a big part of why WotC took their decision so quickly. Basically, yeah. They are using the D&D 5e player's handbook to use Fane's Escape. Not too much of a loss for them since it is published under OGL 1.0a and they have abandoned the attempt to claw it back from that.
The general public will probably lose sight of them fairly shortly. The experienced publishers, hopefully not so much.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I would only consider this a win if 1ed through to 3.5 were made Creative Commons, they can do what they want with 6th or whatever they want to call it. Just let the old games and their srd's go and focus on their future, they can do whatever they want with that. But still this is a win of sorts so kudos to everyone, may your Dungeons remain full of treasure and your Dragons be TPK machines of Epic scale.
EtG
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Dragon Nexus Games wrote: taking the latin word for octopus that would be 'octopus'
UnArcaneElection wrote: Dragon Nexus Games wrote: Dancing Wind wrote: Will your law firm be working with creators to help them make sure what they publish stays firmly within the Creative Commons license? I myself and business is not a lawyer/law firm. However I have familiarity with the IP laws.
There are lawyers that may be interested in helping to thread the legal needle. Some are already into RPG. Lovecraft's work and the years since his death is presumingly reaching a point where the work falls into public domain and so to be inspired by his work can lead to your own depiction. You can add elements into a depiction that wasn't in his or even in WotC or Chaosium's depiction of say Mind Flayers and Cthulu. So, specifically, how long do we have remaining to wait before we can have a Pastafaraian Azathoth?
So, Azathoth was originally created in 1922, which would have put it in the public domain 5 years ago (2018), unfortunately it wasn't published until 1938 which would mean no later than 2034. It's murky af though because they would have had to have been renewed by the 70s etc.
As to Pastafarian, because they purport themselves to be a religious faith I do not believe they can claim copyrights.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Coridan wrote: As to Pastafarian, because they purport themselves to be a religious faith I do not believe they can claim copyrights. Tell that to Scientology!
There is nothing about being a religious organization that puts your creative works in the public domain*.
I think you're confusing "religion" with "government"**. In general, government entities can't claim copyright over their publications/images, etc. Mostly. There are exceptions, even for government publications.
*Although Pastafarians have a LOT of propoganda materials you can freely reproduce.
**Easy to do these days.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Hythlodeus wrote: Dragon Nexus Games wrote: taking the latin word for octopus that would be 'octopus' Maybe derive from scientific name which is often derived from latin.
Say... Cephalopod being twisted into say Cephalopodoids or take from another historical reference and give it a twist for: Akkoroans for a race in a game under development which I may make elements open but reserve to wait on that until I see more detail on the ORC license. Derived from Akkorokamui - from Ainu folklore. Albeit, giving a more 'alien' flair to it (in comparison to English language), with no intended disrespect of the Ainu culture. Without getting too deeply interwined with the actual culture's folklore.
Which the latter is one I am thinking of using.
Of course as an alien race that could be fun for use in say, Starfinder in the future.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Dancing Wind wrote: Coridan wrote: As to Pastafarian, because they purport themselves to be a religious faith I do not believe they can claim copyrights. Tell that to Scientology!
There is nothing about being a religious organization that puts your creative works in the public domain*.
I think you're confusing "religion" with "government"**. In general, government entities can't claim copyright over their publications/images, etc. Mostly. There are exceptions, even for government publications.
*Although Pastafarians have a LOT of propoganda materials you can freely reproduce.
**Easy to do these days. Yes, religious things can be copyrighted. However, a lot of religious things would be public domain because its so old and any copyright on them if they were copyrighted would have expired. These 20th/21st century religious cults and organizations may copyright their authored work if there is any copyrightable content. The Christian Bible is not really copyrightable just by making yet another "translation" and such given the basic words and meaning doesn't change.
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
