Switch Theme:

The extent of GW's IP on 40k's Rule System  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets






Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sidstyler wrote:Not if I had confidence in my product.


So you're saying that the Tolkien and Lovecraft estates had no confidence in their products when they sued TSR over the use of their copyrighted materials without permission? Or that Gary Gygax had no confidence in his product when it was parodied in one of those ridiculous Chick tracts?

Go invent something, write something, etc. If anyone ever tries to steal the idea, then revisit this thread and say with all confidence, that you will not sure the other person for taking your idea. Long story short, if you think someone may sue you, it's probably best to stop wondering and try being unique, rather than "borrowing" someone else's work.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2011/07/15 22:04:40


 
   
Made in us
Shas'o Commanding the Hunter Kadre




Missouri

Hey, that's awesome. You asked me a question, I replied, and then I guess you decided that you asked a completely different question and gave me answers based on that instead. Now I look all kinds of stupid.

The examples you just listed are not what you were talking about in your original post. You asked if "someone put out something almost, kinda like what you did", and I said no because "almost, kinda like what I did" is probably not going to hold up well in court. If it did then so many fantasy novels and games would be getting the hammer brought down on them for being derivatives of Tolkien's work, and GW themselves would probably be included in that. Hell, if what you're saying is true then why isn't Christopher Paolini, the writer of Eragon, getting the gak sued out of him for basically re-writing Star Wars with a fantasy theme? Why doesn't the Tolkien estate sue Terry Brooks for The Sword of Shannara series?

Why? Because you can't sue the gak out of someone for publishing something similar to an existing work, even though some people will criticize that work and call it derivative, it's generally accepted that budding writers will take inspiration from existing series. In some cases, like Eragon, they may even lift the entire plot from another source, but they've put enough of their own spin on it that it's technically something new and you can't really do much about it, even if it's obvious enough that you can say "Gee this kid sounds like Luke Skywalker...he finds some great power, gets found and pursued by an evil ruler, then joins up with rebels that aim to take him down."

Your example about the Big Mac is also hilarious, because that very thing happens in the world of fast food all the time, and McDonald's is guilty of it themselves. Hardee's came up with the "thickburger" a while back, and a couple years after the fact Dairy Queen came up with their own "grillburgers" (they even have an equivalent of the mushroom and swiss burger that Hardee's makes), and now McDonald's is doing their own version of a premium burger made with "real angus beef!", and I'm sure one of them is also a mushroom and swiss. Hardee's came up with a chicken biscuit sandwich for breakfast, and not long after McDonald's has one permanently added to their menu (which has an odd pickle flavor to it that I don't like). Or at least I think they still have the breakfast sandwich, maybe they quit making it I dunno. Sonic also came up with the term "flurry" to describe a mixed ice cream treat before McDonald's introduced the "McFlurry"...I think Sonic eventually dropped the name themselves but they still offer blended slushies.

The point is that fast food places copy each other all the time and I've never heard about a single lawsuit over any of it. Funnily enough you could make a sandwich that is exactly like the Big Mac, but if you don't call it a Big Mac then no one will really care. All you can do is copyright the name, I don't think you can claim ownership of "a sandwich with two patties, lettuce, cheese, and sauce on a sesame seed bun" like you seem to think. "OMG, Burger King sells BK Joe, that's copying McDonald's McCafe! No one can sell coffee but McDonald's! SUUUUUUUE!" :\

So you're saying that the Tolkien and Lovecraft estates had no confidence in their products when they sued TSR over the use of their copyrighted materials without permission? Or that Gary Gygax had no confidence in his product when it was parodied in one of those ridiculous Chick tracts?


Are you talking about the Deities and Demigods book, which had rules for creatures from the Cthulhu mythos in it? In that case I'd say yeah they were probably in the right, they were blatantly using copyrighted material without permission, like you said. But that's not the same as creating something that looks vaguely similar to the creatures from the Cthulhu mythos, giving them all different names and histories, and passing it off as either a parody of Lovecraft or something completely new.

The Chick tracts are something else, and I didn't know there was actually a lawsuit over that. First of all, I really don't think it was meant to be a parody because there was no joking or satire in the tracts that I could see, and Gygax probably could have made a case by calling it libel (wouldn't be surprised if that's what he did). Second, parodies are supposed to be protected under fair use laws here in the United States anyway, so you can't really sue for that. Although I'm sure the lawyers here on Dakka would know a lot more about that than I do.

Much like how one fast food chain can't claim to own the idea of a hamburger sandwich, I don't think you can happily sue anyone and everyone for making a generic fantasy novel that has elements of your fantasy novel, which most likely had elements of other fantasy novels that came before, even if you don't realize it. Now if there's a Gandalf clone running around who is also called Gandalf then you might have a case.

 Desubot wrote:
Why isnt Slut Wars: The Sexpocalypse a real game dammit.


"It's easier to change the rules than to get good at the game." 
   
Made in us
Mutating Changebringer





Pennsylvania

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sidstyler wrote:Not if I had confidence in my product.


So you're saying that the Tolkien and Lovecraft estates had no confidence in their products when they sued TSR over the use of their copyrighted materials without permission? Or that Gary Gygax had no confidence in his product when it was parodied in one of those ridiculous Chick tracts?

Go invent something, write something, etc. If anyone ever tries to steal the idea, then revisit this thread and say with all confidence, that you will not sure the other person for taking your idea. Long story short, if you think someone may sue you, it's probably best to stop wondering and try being unique, rather than "borrowing" someone else's work.


These threads do seem to bring out the posters that best combine ignorance of the IP laws and arrogance in their assumptions about what they should cover. To wit, if you are upset with someone for "for taking your idea", the first thing you ought to do is understand that people cannot take your idea... because you cannot own an idea.

Here is a hint: ideas are the one thing that may never be covered by intellectual property laws.

Copyright law doesn't cover them: "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. "

Patent law does cover them; "The subject matter courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention is limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena."

Beyond that, it's very clear that Solo either does not understand the distinction between the types of protection available under IP law or is simply choosing to gloss over them (given the above, I would surmise the former).

This is clearly evident in the shift from copying a burger, to copying a literary work: Sid is quite right to point out that confidence in the product is the key, because the novelty of a burger is irrelevant compared to the quality of the burger. By contrast, copying pages out of a book is violation of your copyright (N.B., not stealing the idea), or using trademarked names (again, not stealing the ideas), are infringing totally different rights.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







How many students each year are given an assignment to go off, read some books, think about the material, and write papers summarizing those books? And how many of those students take the lazy way out and copy verbatim from either the books themselves, or other the summaries that other people already wrote? And when that happens, most of the time the student gets gets a failing grade and no one really cares after a few years.

If you can sit down and write a 100 or so page rulebook containing rules equivalent to the 94 or so pages of rules in the 40K rulebook, you should go ahead and do that. As an introductory exercise, I invite anyone to try to explain all of the details of the close combat system, and try to avoid accidentally parroting the phrasing in the GW book.

What's the major difference between the school report and the rules for the game system? When money is involved, you get sued for the suspicion of copyright infringement, you get injunctions issued against you, you get DMCA takedown requests issued, and then you get to spend your free time contesting those injunctions and take down notices, and preparing rebuttals for the argument that the other company is paying their staff lawyers to write.

If you're bored, independently wealthy, and have plenty of time on your hands, then I'm sure rewriting a rulebook and then defending yourself from the lawsuits would be immensely involving activity. An activity with all sorts of new and interesting things happening all of the time.

If you have plenty of available time on your hands, want a better game to play, and think you can come up with decent rules, then it would be much more sensible to come up with your own game system. Because, really, if you're going to have to sit down and rewrite all of the rules anyway, wouldn't it make more sense to make the rules better?

Otherwise just skip writing your own version of the rules and start playing Toymallet 40c now.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/07/16 02:37:48


 
   
 
Forum Index » Dakka Discussions
Go to: