MTGNexus

Unreal. I wonder what Hasbro thinks about this.

https://articles.starcitygames.com/news ... 1625627228

This seems like a real stretch made by a man who doesn't actually care about successfully filing the claim, but about making a point. From what I can tell from a quick Google search, you can't make just list out ingredients for a recipe and copyright it. At minimum, you need a collection of recipes and/or extensive "literary expression" via cooking instructions or directions (source: https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq- ... rotection. ). Add in that WotC owns all the "ingredients" and it's about the same as someone trying to file to copyright a combination of Jelly Belly jellybeans. Might make some waves in the legal world, but I don't see this doing anything more than making for some fun MtG podcasts.

The guy will very quickly lose in court if challenged.

I dig it. Our legal system has a lot of metaphorical spaghetti code and this weirdo wants to plumb the depths for his own curiosity. I think the whole scenario is hilarious, and if it actually moves the dial of the status quo, it's even funnier.

Think of it like The Michelin Guide. I don't own the restaurants, but I can still copyright a currated collection of them. Hasbro will probably challange, but on it's surface the copyright is legal, just toothless. I mean it certainly can't stop you from playing that exact deck. Even in a tournament setting with money on the line. The worst it could do is prevent Hasbro from selling that exact combination of cards as a single product.

RadiantSophia wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Think of it like The Michelin Guide. I don't own the restaurants, but I can still copyright a currated collection of them. Hasbro will probably challange, but on it's surface the copyright is legal, just toothless. I mean it certainly can't stop you from playing that exact deck. Even in a tournament setting with money on the line. The worst it could do is prevent Hasbro from selling that exact combination of cards as a single product.

There is a massive difference between this and the Michelin guide. The Guide doesn't even remotely claim they own the list of the restaurants, all they do is grade them on their food and service.

Krishnath wrote: ↑

2 years ago

RadiantSophia wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Think of it like The Michelin Guide. I don't own the restaurants, but I can still copyright a currated collection of them. Hasbro will probably challange, but on it's surface the copyright is legal, just toothless. I mean it certainly can't stop you from playing that exact deck. Even in a tournament setting with money on the line. The worst it could do is prevent Hasbro from selling that exact combination of cards as a single product.

There is a massive difference between this and the Michelin guide. The Guide doesn't even remotely claim they own the list of the restaurants, all they do is grade them on their food and service.

Actually, The guide does claim they own the list. Any copyrighted work consisting of a curated list is a claim of ownership over that list. I published a book detailing the best albums of a certain genre of music. I have a copyright covering that book, and I do own that list of albums. A list containing EVERY album (resteraunt, etc.) can't be copyrighted, but A selective list can, and is, quite literally, a claim of ownership over that list. Now for the speculation: The copyright in question appears to me to simply be a currated list of game pieces from a larger grouping of all the pieces of said game.

RadiantSophia wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Krishnath wrote: ↑

2 years ago

RadiantSophia wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Think of it like The Michelin Guide. I don't own the restaurants, but I can still copyright a currated collection of them. Hasbro will probably challange, but on it's surface the copyright is legal, just toothless. I mean it certainly can't stop you from playing that exact deck. Even in a tournament setting with money on the line. The worst it could do is prevent Hasbro from selling that exact combination of cards as a single product.

There is a massive difference between this and the Michelin guide. The Guide doesn't even remotely claim they own the list of the restaurants, all they do is grade them on their food and service.

Actually, The guide does claim they own the list. Any copyrighted work consisting of a curated list is a claim of ownership over that list. I published a book detailing the best albums of a certain genre of music. I have a copyright covering that book, and I do own that list of albums. A list containing EVERY album (resteraunt, etc.) can't be copyrighted, but A selective list can, and is, quite literally, a claim of ownership over that list. Now for the speculation: The copyright in question appears to me to simply be a currated list of game pieces from a larger grouping of all the pieces of said game.

It still doesn't match, it's like comparing a recipe book (The Michelin Guide) to a recipe (An MTG deck), you can copyright the former, but not the latter.

Krishnath wrote: ↑

2 years ago

RadiantSophia wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Krishnath wrote: ↑

2 years ago

There is a massive difference between this and the Michelin guide. The Guide doesn't even remotely claim they own the list of the restaurants, all they do is grade them on their food and service.

Actually, The guide does claim they own the list. Any copyrighted work consisting of a curated list is a claim of ownership over that list. I published a book detailing the best albums of a certain genre of music. I have a copyright covering that book, and I do own that list of albums. A list containing EVERY album (resteraunt, etc.) can't be copyrighted, but A selective list can, and is, quite literally, a claim of ownership over that list. Now for the speculation: The copyright in question appears to me to simply be a currated list of game pieces from a larger grouping of all the pieces of said game.

It still doesn't match, it's like comparing a recipe book (The Michelin Guide) to a recipe (An MTG deck), you can copyright the former, but not the latter.

Incorrect. You can argue that the MtG deck is a list currated for aesthetical reasons at least as much as practical, in which case it certainly is covered as "creative", and copyrightable. You are clearly confusing grounds upon which a copyright can exist with what rights that copyright grants.

RadiantSophia wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Krishnath wrote: ↑

2 years ago

RadiantSophia wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Actually, The guide does claim they own the list. Any copyrighted work consisting of a curated list is a claim of ownership over that list. I published a book detailing the best albums of a certain genre of music. I have a copyright covering that book, and I do own that list of albums. A list containing EVERY album (resteraunt, etc.) can't be copyrighted, but A selective list can, and is, quite literally, a claim of ownership over that list. Now for the speculation: The copyright in question appears to me to simply be a currated list of game pieces from a larger grouping of all the pieces of said game.

It still doesn't match, it's like comparing a recipe book (The Michelin Guide) to a recipe (An MTG deck), you can copyright the former, but not the latter.

Incorrect. You can argue that the MtG deck is a list currated for aesthetical reasons at least as much as practical, in which case it certainly is covered as "creative", and copyrightable.

I vehemently disagree. It is a list of items and their ratios, which makes it a recipe.

Except, in this case, the cards were chosen purely for aesthetical reasons. That IS the reason they chose the cards they did, to secure the copyright. The didn't copyright a highly-played deck or a winning stratagey. They copyrighted a deck with Angels and demons exactly so it could be considered "a creative endevor". A simple recipe (assumably for winning the game) would have never recieved a copyright.

This seems like something they did just to prove they can, but it probably wouldn't hold up in court.

motleyslayer wrote: ↑

2 years ago

This seems like something they did just to prove they can, but it probably wouldn't hold up in court.

It is exactly "something they did just to prove they can", as per their own words. Stranger things have been upheld in court, regardless it can't prevent you from playing that deck or those cards.

RadiantSophia wrote: ↑

2 years ago

You are clearly confusing grounds upon which a copyright can exist with what rights that copyright grants.

What rights does the copyright grant?