How does Square get away with using copyrighted monsters in FF, DQ, and the Mana series? Are they just big enough that Hasbro/TSR/WotC doesn't want to sue?
Sure, mimics are generic enough, but what about stuff like Beholders, Coeurls or Mindflayers? Even uncommon monsters like Bulettes or Ankhegs show up.
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
They specifically had to edit the Beholder's name and sprite in FF1 because of copyright, and the Mindflayers were renamed to "Sorcerers".
TSR/WotC doesn't own the name Mind Flayer, the general imagery of a tentacle-faced magic-user, or a Mind Blast attack. They do specifically own purple skinned mind-flayers called Illithids. The Bandercoeurl, Bulette, and Ankheg are all monsters from pulp adventure novels that Gygas and crew read gowing up. TSR stole them, so WotC can't own them.
>Beholder
Name and Sprite.
Didn't those monsters came from some toys that Gygax had? I remember the Bulette and one that looked like hook horrors
Because Hasbro doesn't and can't copyright those, even though they want people to think they have.
even shit like mindflayers or coeurls?
bullshit, they (mindflayers) are in FF15
>bullshit,
Literally nothing in my post is untrue. You can download the rom of the game right now (or watch a walkthrough) and see.
What you fricking serious?
Do you not understand that different countries literally do not have to give a frick about other country copyrights and sometimes laws.
Japan in particular could not give two flying shit about what we think over here in burger land. They take what they want and laugh at us.
Doubly so for older games/rpgs when the laws were not as tight as they are these days.
>even shit like mindflayers or coeurls?
Mindflayers were copied by Gygax from some fantasy novel coverart, and Coeurls come from a pulp sci-fi novel published in the 1930s. They might be able to copyright the highly specific names in some cases, but their looks and concepts are not original nor copyrightable.
>copyrighted monsters
Outside of incredibly specific terms of largely nonsensical naming, not a thing.
"Mind flayer" is not a copyrightable term. Nor are squid-faced purple-y psionicists a copyrightable "art-y thing". Don't call it Illithid and you're fine, no matter how much Hasbro might try to kvetch.
This. "Beholder" and "Mind flayer" are generic English words, and the style and art or silhouette of a 'monster' isn't copyrightable. It's not hard to avoid calling shit "Illithids" or "Votann". Actually you still can, just spell it differently. Illthids and Wotans. Done.
>but anon, then why did Paizo avoid updating Mind-flayers, Beholders, and Warlocks for PF1?!
Paizuri are pathologically moronic and semitically neurotic. Always were.
Paizo didn't update Mindflayers and Beholders for PF1E went to print after Product Identity was established. Paizo would not have been allowed to use the OGL if they used the creatures.
>Purple
Calling your purple tentacle wizards "mind flayers" does trip the copyright line. Just ask Wizkids for details.
Wrong. Parroting Paizo's deflection(s) doesn't make them true. They were always pathetic and clamoring for notice-me-senpai-ism in relation to WotC.
I don't trust Paizo for anything, but I do begrudgingly accept the decisions of the Washington state court of appeals.
Correct. The 1.0 version of the OGL, which did not define Product Identity, also banned the creation of books that could replace the DMG. The 1.01 did not, but its own text forever banned you from using any version of the OGL if you used certain nouns created by Gary, Dave, Skip, and a few others as well as specific visual depictions of what those nous belonged to.
>ALLOWED to use the OGL
Lol
Lmao
It honestly sounds like Hasbro has a very loose copyright.
Something that they would never win in court, but no one wants to challenge them and go to court, because going to court is expensive even if you win
Because Mindflayers are Cthulu in a robe and Coeurls are a creature from a story by Van Vogt.
>How does Square get away with using copyrighted monsters in FF, DQ, and the Mana series?
Mind Flayers and Beholders aren't actually copyright, but part of """Product Identity"""". What this means is you're 100% not allowed to use "Ilithids", but you may use "sufficiently distinct Mindflayers". That's the main thing. That's 100% what's going on today. It's why Dragon's Dogma and Goblin Slayer have the "Evil Eye" creature.
The second thing is that Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, and other games like Wizardry, were all using Mind Flayers back in the 80's, to early 90's, when D&D was being published by Tactical Studies Rules Inc. It wasn't until Wizards of The Coast got the IP did they actually decide they autta' start claiming some of Gygax's "original" creations as their own for legal n' merchandising purposes.
Beholders called beholder that look like this are copyrighted, not just product identity. The rest, yes, is just product identity.
Because Squuenix is from Japan and WOtC is American?
Also you do realize that if they wanted to copyright every single individual monster the amount of money needed woyld be humongous just for USA. Then repeat that for every country out there.
What’s in ops pic? Not familiar. Water elemental?
water colossus by Alex Kintner, no OP.
https://www.artstation.com/artwork/aRkG9z
They aren't actually copy-written. Gelatinous Cubes, Mind-Flayers, and even Gas Spores have been staples of early cRPGs for decades before and after FF's conception.
>copyrighted monsters
Copyright doesn't work that way and if it did violating it would be even more based.
Does not mean the lawyers don't try to make it work that way, Chaosium also sometimes still tries to send C&Ds about parts of Lovecraft's mythos they think they own because other still cooyrighted writers have since used them.