I think just calling a monster a beholder is not a big problem. It is a noun in English after all. But when that monster also has the unusual appearance and traits of a D&D Beholder, then it's reasonable to assume that you're just ripping off someone else's idea.

Quote:

Original post by cppgirl If I made a game and called a monster in it a beholder wotc could sue me??

They'll send you a cease & desist order before they resort to sueing. It is the trademark owner's responsibility to ensure their trademarks are honoured. It's not your responsibility to ensure all your creations are unique (but it is your responsibility to take cease & desist notices seriously)

And how is this different from WotC using the names Orc and Goblin in D&D and Magic? These are created by Tolkien, but used widely in games. Has Tolkien given up the rights to the creatures?

As seen on Wikipedia, the Beholder is featured in quite some other games, including Doom and Dungeon Siege. Although named differently, wouldn't they have (had) the same copyright problems?

Quote:

Original post by DaBono Although named differently, wouldn't they have (had) the same copyright problems?

Well its all about the name.

Quote:

And how is this different from WotC using the names Orc and Goblin in D&D and Magic?

Missed oppurtunity. Back then people werent trying to copyright and trade mark eveything in sight.

Tolkien more than likely had the right to claim these names; however he did not.

If you do not protect you copyrights/trademarks you lose them. Orcs have been in used to broadly now to do anything about it.


AS for the OP question. Just name your creatures differently if you want sphereical one eyed tentacle things.

And I dunno maybe even try to come up with an original monster.

Quote:

Well its all about the name.

Hmm, my Monster Manual^TM says: "All characters [...] and the distinctive likeness thereof are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast."
Seems to me that striclty speaking even changing the name won't get you off the hook.

Quote:

Original post by DaBono Quote: Well its all about the name. Hmm, my Monster ManualTM says: "All characters [...] and the distinctive likeness thereof are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast." Seems to me that striclty speaking even changing the name won't get you off the hook.

There are a honkin' lot of monsters like medusae, vampires, real animals, zombies, skeletons, werewolves, dragons, demons, hydras and a lot more that can be considered intellectual property of some ancient culture or medieval superstition, so you could always get away by basing your work off some obscure cave painting. WotC would be hard pressed to explain how they invented about 95% of their beastiary, most of it just rips off old sources and integrates them in their locked-down d20 scheme.

And about floating eyes... Origin had Gazers (ooooh! It's not a Beholder!) in the Ultima series, which had a large central eye and some smaller eyes on stalks and which were spellcasters. As you mentioned, EQ uses a barely hidden Beholder reference. There's probably a whole metric crapload of floating eyeballs to be found in fantasy games, which would all be casters because "a floating eye-thingy eye-lashes you for 50 damage" sounds stupid.

Quote:

Original post by DaBono Quote: Well its all about the name. Hmm, my Monster ManualTM says: "All characters [...] and the distinctive likeness thereof are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast." Seems to me that striclty speaking even changing the name won't get you off the hook.

EDIT: INAL, I'm just stating the things as they have been explained to me.

Again this comes down to protecting your rights and marks. The beholder likeness is probably too far gone for them too make a claim too, as there are too many prior and derived works out in the open that they have never contested.

Now if you mix the likeness and the exact name, you can bet they'd tried to protect it.

Things like dragons and medusas they would be wasting thier time to protect.

A monster like the 'rust monster' you can bet they would protect, probably likeness and name.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a side note: There is nothing stopping you from making a movie called Star Wars with characters named Darth Vader, set in space etc...

But Lucas would sue the hell out of you and win. But if he didn't then there is no problem with you making such a work.

And if it was widely distributed or others did the same, then Lucas would eventually lose all his rights. The Holder of the marks and rights MUST protect them, or they simply don't exist.

This is one legal arguement/attack commonly used against Liscence like the GPL and others. As they go against Copyright precedents. The arguement is 'if you are not protecting your copyright, then you don't have one.' This has some merit to it, becuase in general that is how copyrights work. But I don't think the GPL is in any danger.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Completely OT... This is currently the tactic the lawyer Jack Thompson is trying to use against EA.

He is saying that mod makers are using the SIMS trademark.

AND

He is saying that EA is actively supporting porno mod makers.

If EA does not Stop the mod makers then he is saying that EA is giving up there copyrights and trademarks to the SIMS.

UNLESS

EA is giving mod makers the exclusive right to use them... and in that case they are supporting porno mod makers.

So essentially he is trying to black mail them. Either stop modders or lose your copyrights.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Another OT comment jsut to give more perspective.

The MPAA and RIAA do care about the loss revenue do to piracy, but not as much as they do about thier copyrights.

They must at least make an effort to fight piracy. If they do not, then they risk losing the rights to copyrightable material.

It like when someone comes out with a Linux Window Manager skin that looks alot like OS X and has an apple logo on it, apple will issue a cease and desist.

Not becuase they have any possible concern over loss of profits, or someone mistaking linux for OS X, but becuase they MUST protect thier trademark, or risk losing it.

[Edited by - HAM on August 9, 2005 7:37:21 AM]

I've seen these things everywhere.

Doom also has a big floating eye that chases you arround.

Even John Carperter's Big Trouble in Little China has an eye-infested floating "ball", that could be considered to be the Boss' Roaming Eye...

Heh, considering D&D originally ripped its PC races and monsters directly from Tolkien and others I find the whole discussion funny. Halflings instead of hobbits...hairfoots instead of harfoots. Granted, Tolkien drew heavily from existing literature but TSR showed no shame in their thievery.

I think you can use a floating eye creature in your game - just don't make it exactly like (appearance and attributes) D&D's Beholders. I'm sure they got the idea from somewhere anyway.

This post is, of course, not legal advice. Common sense rarely agrees with the law it seems.
M

[Edited by - mearrin69 on August 15, 2005 6:15:52 PM]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/20040121a

This should answer a lot of questions :)

-Joe