When is "New" New?

[sladethesniper]

When looking over all the options for publishing via Chaosium, WOTC, MRQ, others et al, at what point is a product considered "original" with regard to the rules.

To make a setting, almost all of that is original work done by the author, flavor text, etc.

When doing up equipment, it seems that you run a good chance of making a lot of "similar" items...there are only so many swords, pole arms and armor types after all.

With sci-fi, there is a bit more freedom, but a lot of will have a "derivative" feel to it.

The above are givens, the fruit of our creative labors....the question I am asking is a bit more esoteric.

"When using a published rules set, how much change/how many changes can that system support before it becomes something new"?

Basically, you use BRP or Silhoutte or D20 and are using their rules set to create settings, campaigns, etc. but modify the rules set (house rules, options, GM fiat, etc.), at what point, in your opinion, do the new rules change the rules set to an extent to where it is something "new" and not "derivative" (if there is even a difference in your mind)?

This is an opinion question only.

-STS

[frogspawner]

Interesting.

Hasn't it been said that rules-sets can't be copyrighted? So if you just re-worded the self-same rules it would be "new", legally. Some publishers might not care beyond that...

But the Law is an Ass, so that's not the true answer. I'd say, if it has changes that are good enough, then it deserves to be called "new". In other words, it's totally subjective! (Sorry, perhaps that's not very helpful...)

'Derivative' is a loaded term, but not necessarily bad - I think anyone would have trouble coming up with good rules that weren't derived from (better to say "inspired by"?) some previous rules-set.

[Dredj]

Originally Posted by frogspawner

Interesting.

Hasn't it been said that rules-sets can't be copyrighted? So if you just re-worded the self-same rules it would be "new", legally. Some publishers might not care beyond that...

But the Law is an Ass, so that's not the true answer. I'd say, if it has changes that are good enough, then it deserves to be called "new". In other words, it's totally subjective! (Sorry, perhaps that's not very helpful...)

'Derivative' is a loaded term, but not necessarily bad - I think anyone would have trouble coming up with good rules that weren't derived from (better to say "inspired by"?) some previous rules-set.

The same can be said about settings, too.

[peterb]

As a soon-to-become-legal-professional (when law school is done) I do have a few opinions on the matter. Mind you, these are my opinions, take them for what they are worth...

Based on how you phrase your question you really ask: what are the limits to someone's ownership of a rule, where does it end?

Well, to be frank, the ownership does not even begin. Rules (as such) cannot be owned. A rule is an idea. The only way one can own an idea is by claiming a patent. With the exception of the U.S., rules of games are excluded from patent protection all around the globe. Everyone is free to express the rules of the game chess.

What one could claim ownership (the copyright) to is the way one has expressed an idea.

A claim of copyright is only valid if the expression is "original". The concept of originality is, unfortunately, not the same in all nations. Europe has it's version, the U.S. another and the U.K. still a slightly different one. The former European colonies have imported European copyright notions, the same goes for the former eastern-block. To make matters worse, there are some (in some cases quite subtle) differences between the European nations concepts of originality.

A very basic definition of originality is: an expression is original if it's the result of a human beings own personal, independent, creation.

So, based on this very basic definition, a description of a games rule, that is the result of someone's own, personal and independent creation, is copyright protected.

There are a few problems here. What is really meant by personal, by independent and by creation? It's here the laws of Europe, the U.S. and the U.K. begins to differ. In Europe courts, particularly in Scandinavia, use a help rule called "the double-creation criteria" => A expression is not original if the possibility of independent double-creation is not minimal.

That is, if you have reason to suspect that the probability of 10 (or more) experienced roleplayers, who all know of the ideas that makes up a given RPG, could independently produce the same or very similar expressions of a given rule are more than minimal (say more than 10% probability) then those expressions would not be original, and thus would lack copyright protection.

So to answer your question. In my opinion a description of a rule of a game is, at best, protected against direct copying. There is no protection against adaptations or derivative use.

If someone describes a rule with his own words, then it's quite OK.

Finally, try to avoid falling into the trap of assuming that just because a text derives from the ideas presented in another text, it's also a derivative text. The idea is unprotected. It's fair game. You may derive from other peoples ideas - that's one of the fundamental concepts of copyright legislation. Only expressions are protected, not the ideas they contain.