What exactly is copyrighted/trademarked about RPGs?

[Heaven's Thunder Hammer]

As the topic says, I'm curious what is typically copyrighted/trademarked about RPGs.

For years I've been interested in in a novel idea that uses some of the sphere system from Mage: the Ascension, but have always been nervous about getting sued. Now that I've turned 30, I realize I should actually get on this idea I've been sitting on for 12 years.

Does CCP/Onyx path have the right/ability to sue me if I have characters in a novel start talking about the Sphere of Forces or Life etc?

Or if I just change the names, it's all fine?

[Username17]

You can't trademark or copyright concepts, mechanics, or public domain things. So basically everything in Scion is fair use except for the logos, a couple of the NPC's names, and the book titles. Most games borrow heavily from myth, so in D&D there is jack diddly they can do about you using the words "Hell" or "Abyss." But they have trademarked the specific phrase "Clockwork Nirvana of Mechanus" (note: they don't even own the word Mechanus by itself, much as they would like to).

Now let's talk specifics about Mage the Ascension:

© 2000 White Wolf Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction without the written permission of the publisher is expressly forbidden, except for the purposes of reviews, and for blank character sheets, which may be reproduced for personal use only. White Wolf, Vampire the Masquerade, Vampire the Dark Ages, Mage the Ascension, World of Darkness and Aberrant are registered trademarks of White Wolf Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Werewolf the Apocalypse, Wraith the Oblivion, Changeling the Dreaming, Hunter the Reckoning, Werewolf the Wild West, Mage the Sorcerers Crusade, Wraith the Great War, Trinity, Initiates of the Art, Masters of the Art, Digital Web 2.0 and Guide to the Technocracy are trademarks of White Wolf Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. All characters, names, places and text herein are copyrighted by White Wolf Publishing, Inc.

So first off, most of that is trademarks. Obviously you can use the phrase "digital web 2.0" when discussing, for example: Web 2.0. Because that's a thing and it's what it is called. The trademark is on the specific logo and use. So you can't use this logo:

And you can't name a book about technomages in an RPG setting "digital web 2.0" or anything that would be confused with that logo or title. Although actually you might be able to, because White Wolf hasn't been publishing anything for a long time and if a trademark isn't used or defended it ceases to exist.

Anyway, what you're actually interested in is the part where "All characters, names, places and text herein are copyrighted by White Wolf Publishing, Inc" because that's the part that includes content you actually want to use. In that case, every proper name is copyright, and you can only use the ones that have prior art. So you probably can't use "Virtual Adepts" because I think they put their flag up on that one, but you obviously can use the "Order of Hermes" because that's a thing that predates White Wolf even existing. Dividing magic into spheres is not something they can own, and the specific spheres they have chosen are all normal words that they also cannot own. The symbols for each sphere are things that they do own.

-Username17

[Laertes]

The symbols for each sphere are things that they do own.

The symbols are standard alchemical ones. There's clear prior art showing them being used in a magical context since the age of John Dee and Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa, making it undeniably public domain.

From Wikipedia:

Correspondence is a symbol for amalgam or amalgamation, "Amalgama".
Entropy is a symbol for rotting or decay, "Putredo/putrefactio".
The sigil of Forces is part of the symbol for "boiling," "Ebbulio".
Life is a symbol for composition, "Compositio".
As with Correspondence, the sigil of Matter is another symbol for the process of amalgamation, "Amalgama".
Mind is a symbol for solution, "Solutio".
Prime is a symbol meaning essence, "Essentia".
Spirit may be derived from the symbol for fumes, "Fumus".
Time is the symbol for dust, "Pulvis".
The tenth symbol depicted in Ascension is a symbol for vinegar.

The question is whether that specific combination of word and symbol is a trademark. The answer there is probably that yes it is; but if you kept the symbol and and changed the word to a synonym, the fact that both you and Phil Brucato used the same source material would probably be enough to protect you.

[Username17]

Not... exactly.

Here's Amalgama:



And here's Matter:



Obviously similar, and if you just use Amalgama you're in the clear. But the specific drawing is owned by White Wolf. Or whoever.

-Username17

[Laertes]

Riffing off what Frank posted, it may be easier to avoid Dan Brown Disease altogether and actually use the alchemical symbols and alchemical names. If pseudo-historical pseudo-Latin and pseudo-mysticism is cool (and we know it is because of the number of games and other media that use it), then actual historical Latin mysticism is much cooler. Plus, as mentioned, it is fairly undeniably public domain.

[Mord]

If you're really still nervous, come up with a name other than "Sphere" and you should be golden (e.g. Domain, Realm, Path, Way, Form).

The only one of the actual Sphere names that's remotely unique to WW is "Correspondence," which they changed to "Space" in Awakening anyway.

[Heaven's Thunder Hammer]

Thanks for the great info guys, this is quite helpful.

[ScottS]

Ryan Dancey is claiming the Oracle v Google reversal affects RPGs...

"Because we conclude that the declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organization of the API packages are entitled to copyright protection, we reverse the district court’s copyrightability determination"

And the methods of interfacing RPG components together just became copyrights.(...)

The court (correctly) analyzed Java as having two components. The "declaring code" (function descriptions, the "API") and the "implementing code" - the part that actually does something.

Google made new Java packages. It made its own versions of the implementing code, and thus avoided a copyright claim(*). But it used the same declaring code as Oracle's Java - so that programs written for Oracle's Java work would with Google's Java.

The court has held that the declaring code is copyrightable, and that Google infringed Oracle's copyright by replicating it.(...)

I would argue that most of what constitutes the "rules" of an RPG are methods which allow objects of game code to interact with each other. We call those interfaces "stat blocks". I think this decision makes them copyrightable when used as a part of a taxonomy (a rule set).

(*) It appears that one of Google's employees was dumb enough to put copyrighted code he'd written at Sun/Oracle right into Google's Java, but that infringement was a separate issue to this question of APIs in this case.

[Username17]

Ryan Dancey is completely talking out of his ass. The question was about whether the code could be copyrighted at all, and Oracle won a ruling that it could. There has never been a question about whether you could copyright the text of an RPG. The point is that it doesn't fucking matter whether you copyrighted the text, because someone else can write different words that happen to imply the same game mechanics.

Could you not have [...] written your own declaring code. You could have done that. [...] That wouldn't have been easy for other Java users, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't have had the same exact function?"

That's them pointing out that Google could have written their own code that performed the same functions rather than copypastaing work done by Oracle. In short: the Judge was referring to the dodge that RPG writers have been using in their highly derivative heartbreakers for decades. And the ruling went against Google because that dodge is still intact, thus negating their argument that they didn't have a choice if they wanted to maintain compatibility standards.

You can still put AD&D into your own words and release it as your own. Just like you've always been able to do. The ruling changes nothing for RPGs and merely reaffirms what we've always known.

-Username17

[Drolyt]

Ryan Dancey is completely talking out of his ass. The question was about whether the code could be copyrighted at all, and Oracle won a ruling that it could. There has never been a question about whether you could copyright the text of an RPG. The point is that it doesn't fucking matter whether you copyrighted the text, because someone else can write different words that happen to imply the same game mechanics.

Could you not have [...] written your own declaring code. You could have done that. [...] That wouldn't have been easy for other Java users, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't have had the same exact function?"

That's them pointing out that Google could have written their own code that performed the same functions rather than copypastaing work done by Oracle. In short: the Judge was referring to the dodge that RPG writers have been using in their highly derivative heartbreakers for decades. And the ruling went against Google because that dodge is still intact, thus negating their argument that they didn't have a choice if they wanted to maintain compatibility standards.

You can still put AD&D into your own words and release it as your own. Just like you've always been able to do. The ruling changes nothing for RPGs and merely reaffirms what we've always known.

-Username17

You've completely misunderstood the appeals court ruling. Google did use its own code. What the idiotic appeals court judge is calling "declaring code" is what everyone else calls an API. The court is seriously ruling that you can copyright function names. It is true that the ruling means fuck all for RPGs, but it sure as hell does not "reaffirm what we've always known". It sets a fucking disastrous precedent for the software industry and we can only hope it gets overturned.

[Username17]

I agree that it's a dangerous ruling. It's a dangerous ruling because software is stupid, and really does need exactly identical text in declarative statements to recognize foreign code as being the right kind of code. But the ruling was about whether exact text in the APIs could be copyrighted or not - which has nothing at all to do with RPGs. No one contests the idea that the exact text in an RPG can be subject to copyright. It's just that we don't give a shit because there are thousands if not millions of ways to instruct someone to roll a d20 with a +8 bonus against a DC of 22. And since humans are not stupid in the way computer code is stupid, they can successfully run that "code" whether it's using the exact text or a thousand other variations instead.

Basically, Dancey is exactly wrong. The court ruled in favor of Oracle on the grounds that the practice that makes copyright on RPGs almost meaningless still exists. And while they are actually kind of wrong for the purposes of computer programs that are supposed to interact with other computer programs - for the purposes of RPGs it does nothing but reaffirm the fact that we can tell people to roll Subterfuge + Charisma instead of Charisma + Subterfuge when reverse engineering a White Wolf game and thereby avoid copyright issues entirely.

-Username17

[tussock]

That reads to me like it's the same way Gygax lost to TSR back in pre-internet land.

Because they sued him for having "Player Characters" with "Classes" in his game, which is basically what those things should be naturally called. And they won. So his next game had "Heroic Personas" with ... I can't even remember because when you change the name of basic concepts it gets to be hard to read and use.

Which is Dancy's point. Copyright is forever and you can't lose it. The OGL totally lets anyone use things like Player Characters and Classes now if they use the OGL, but games which don't could probably be sued by WotC on that ruling and win. The names for the function calls. Attacks. To hit. Hit Points. Armour Class. Spell level. Character level.

So you can have levels, but can you call them levels? Or is that using WotC's API?

But he's very wrong that game rules in general are methods that can be protected because they're not. Code isn't either unless you just copy it word for word (and not even then in many cases), which is something real programmers do all the fucking time (because reinventing the wheel is both stupid and would take your entire lifetime).

[Username17]

Gary Gygax was sued for trademark infringement because his product was this:



They claimed that having the title be "DD" with the second D slightly lower and to the right of the first D was an obvious attempt to confuse consumers and cash in on the name recognition of the TSR owned brand.

It's unclear whether that would have held up in court, but it certainly might have, as the "Dangerous Dimensions" material clearly reference Gygax's work with D&D, making the sleight of hand almost certainly intentional. The case was settled out of court, and "Dangerous Dimensions" became "Dangerous Journeys" so as not to infringe on the double D trademark.

No one is claiming that you can bring out a non-parody "World of Dimness" or "World of Despair" or something in a similar font to the World of Darkness trademark. You can't.

-Username17

[DEBO]

Copyright is forever and you can't lose it.

I thought copyright was limited to author's death plus some ammount of years or some ammount of time after publication?

[angelfromanotherpin]

Yeah, but that keeps being extended so Mickey Mouse never becomes public domain. So basically, nothing created after Mickey Mouse is ever going out of copyright until there's sufficient interest to fight Disney over it.

[deaddmwalking]

Interestingly, copyright is defined in relation to the death of the author, but in the case of corporate ownership, I'm not sure what that means. I know 'Peter Pan' is owned by a children's hospital. I'd be curious to know when the copyright is expected to expire.

[angelfromanotherpin]

I'd be curious to know when the copyright is expected to expire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_and_ ... ght_status

It's complicated. Copyright of the novel has expired, but the hospital claims that a 1928 play version of the story gives them copyright over the general IP until 2023. And 1928 is the magical Mickey year, so if their claim is valid (which is questionable) it's going to stay in copyright until someone is willing to nut-punch DisneyCorp.

[Gnorman]

Peter Pan may be "owned" by a corporation, but the copyright term is still the life of J.M. Barrie + 70 years, special treatment by Parliament aside.

In the case of corporate authorship, the works are generally works-for-hire. Duration for those is 95 years from publication date or 120 years from creation date, whichever is shorter.

And just to correct a misconception: "prior art" doesn't mean shit in copyright. That's a term used in patents. The proper concepts are either "scenes a faire" (when referring to ideas and conventions that are "necessary" to the genre) or "public domain" (when referring to shit that's been around for centuries). Same basic ideas (can't claim previously-known and ancient shit as intellectual property), but they are different enough to warrant pedantry.

Another common copyright misconception is that names and title are copyrightable. They are not. J.K. Rowling cannot copyright the name "Harry Potter." She can copyright the character of Harry Potter, boy wizard extraordinaire (because the combination of character elements as evinced in the novels constitutes protectable expression), but not the name itself.

[ACOS]

In the case of corporate authorship, the works are generally works-for-hire. Duration for those is 95 years from publication date or 120 years from creation date, whichever is shorter.

A time frame that curiously keeps getting extended every time Mickey Mouse is about to expire.

[hyzmarca]

Which is Dancy's point. Copyright is forever and you can't lose it.

It isn't. It tops out at 70 years after the death of the creator, or 120 years for corporate authorship.

Which means that you can meaningfully shorten some copyright terms through murder, but you probably shouldn't.

[darkmaster]

Well, since people are probably tired of writing it and people obviously don't get these newfagled wordy things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4 Boom, youtube video.

[Gnorman]

Fair use would like to have a word with the author of that video, who seems to believe that fair use does not in fact exist.

[Fwib]

Fair use would like to have a word with the author of that video, who seems to believe that fair use does not in fact exist.

How do you reach that conclusion? IIRC CGPGrey has said he was very aware of Fair Use when making that video.

[Drolyt]

Fair use would like to have a word with the author of that video, who seems to believe that fair use does not in fact exist.

You are either confused about fair use or that video, possibly both.

[erik]

It isn't. It tops out at 70 years after the death of the creator, or 120 years for corporate authorship.

I thought it topped out at whenever Mickey Mouse was going to become available for free use?

In the event that Mickey will become available, the duration will be extended.