Many of the generic Fantasy tropes that you see in many fantasy games nowadays (Dwarves, Elves, Wizards, Barbarians, Magic, etc) are essentially part of the Public Domain.
Think of it this way: How difficult would it be to write a "Fantasy" story that didn't involve anything you've ever seen in a fantasy story before? The general Fantasy Ideas are not copyrighted material, only the specific instances of those ideas as they were presented in the original source.
Like, if Blizzard decided to introduce Drizzt Do'Urden into Diablo 3, without the express consent of Wizards of the Coast and anyone else who holds the copyright, they can be sued. However, if they decided to make you fight a Dark Elf who just happened to wield 2 swords, and wasn't overwhelmingly similar to Drizzt, there'd be no problem. The same goes for a character like Legolas. If you add Legolas to your story without consent, BAM, lawsuit. If you add a blonde elven archer. No issue.
Oh my god, no Drizzt in Diablo please
Also, isn't the drow style of dual-wielding unique?Not that I have anything against Salvatore, it's just that it wouldn't fit at all.|||Quote:
On the subject at hand, the word "Hobbit" is actually one of many Tolkien estate trademarks. On the early days of D&D there was an actual threat to sue when the very first edition used 'Hobbit' and 'Ent'.
While these words are definitely Sir Tolkien constructions and non existing on this context until then, my personal opinion is that the trademark is abusive (and most probably against Tolkien wishes, given his strong desire for his work to be seen as the missing Britain mythos).
I think Orc were also one of them no, since Orc before his time means some sort of ocean animal? Now, of course, Orcs are just so overused.
Anyways, even if the said spells in question cannot be find in Western Lore, chances are they will appear in some Japanese/Chinese/Indian mythology 1 way or another, so there is practically no way of suing them.
Anyways, putting things into prespective, you cannot even get sued for making Masyu, Nurikabe, LITS, Hashiwokakero, etc. puzzles that originated from Nikoli. Sudoku and Kakuro is left out since they originated from Dell Magazine, but Nikoli was not sued by Dell Magazine on that neither. You just cannot copy the exact same puzzle (otherwise, we would be looking at thousands of lawsuits by now). If you look at this, clearly merely copying a spell is not enough to get you sued.|||If Wizards of the Coast attempted to sue Blizzard for using the Wizard, then the Tolken Estate could sue WotC for taking so much from Tolken's writings. And Tolken was inspired by old tales and legends... see where I'm going with this?|||Some country is going to sue Tolken Estate now for taking their myths.|||Quote:
Just wondering...the wiz is...seriously almost exactly like the wiz in D&D...wayyyy to similar to be a coincidence....can't they get sued for this kind of stuff?....like the captain crunch in WoW at first that needed to be changed
i actually like it since i played all the BG and nvwn game and im a big fan of their spell system althought nvwn2 was kind of a ripoff with the new rule...but still did they ask the permission?...or are we gonna get stuck with a bunch of idiot that think blizzard created stoneskin,magic missile,mirrior image,conjured armor,etc... like how people think Warhammer40k is actually a clone of starcraft when starcraft and warcraft are there because of Warhammer and Warhammer40k actually
will wizard of the coast accept this?do they get their share?where they asked for this?did blizz actually gave them credit to these awesome spell?
They can't get sued because Wizard isn't a registered trademark (except in the context of Wizard's of the Coast).
Nor is the idea of a magic user or Wizard copyrightable. AFAIK things like this you own the expression of the idea not the idea itself.
There are so many differences between the D&D wizard and the D3 wizard that no type of trademark of copyright suit would get past summary judgment, and would probably be dismissed for failure to state a claim (because you cant claim to own something that is not ownable.)
Likewise it's not patentable.
The idea of space marines and insectoid aliens would also not be owned by games workshop, it would be owned by the author of starship troopers (pub 1959) but afaik the idea of futuristic aliens is not copyrightable either.|||Quote:
Everything is an altered copy of something else, Blizzard games are no different in that rule.
You are an altered copy of your parents and the environment, and they are of there parents and so on.
Prius is an altered copy of an old, polluting Ford which is an altered copy of a carriage.
The Mona Lisa is an altered copy of cave-man drawing.
Drink some more and you can believe the whole universe is a copy :]
Influence of the environment can not be described as copy because the result of influence is completely uncertain and depends on universal probability. You can then call it legacy or heritage of the environment but that will bring you into another problem. Like uncertainty principle in physics. If everything was an altered copy of something else ( deterministic ), then particles would have an exact position in space. In philosophy your view is called "determinism" and it's long time since it was proved wrong. In that time they thought even your actions are altered copy of your previous actions :}}}|||Technically speaking, isn't anyone able to sue anyone over anything, whether it'll be valid or not? So, i'm guessing they could yes, probably wouldn't even be the strangest case.
But anyways, i played BG and all the Infinity games, can't really see that much similarity with the D3 wiz, although (s)he definitively was influenced more in that (magic) direction this time. From a gameplay point of view i like it, although it could take away some of Diablo's character.
No comments:
Post a Comment