- Add Review
- Subscribe
- Nominate
- Submit Media
- RSS
- kentona
- Added: 08/01/2017 06:29 PM
- Last updated: 03/28/2024 02:04 PM
- 8353 views
Posts
Pages:
1
I thought that you couldn't use beholders in commercial products? Not sure on that rule, but I'd check?
author=Craze
I thought that you couldn't use beholders in commercial products? Not sure on that rule, but I'd check?
It's not a beholder actually. It's a beeholder. Totally different.
(what? seriously?)
Unfortunately, yes. The Beholder is part of the D&D franchise. I don't think you'd be the first to help yourself to one of their critters, but the possibility of a C&D probably isn't a chance worth taking.
Call it a Bigle. It'll be a throwback to similar enemies from Fire Emblem Gaiden, and Nintendo's all but forgotten that old name now. They're called Mogalls and Balors now. Bonus points if you make it irritatingly clone itself in battle.
Call it a Bigle. It'll be a throwback to similar enemies from Fire Emblem Gaiden, and Nintendo's all but forgotten that old name now. They're called Mogalls and Balors now. Bonus points if you make it irritatingly clone itself in battle.
Yeah, this definitely doesn't violate anything. The name "beholder" isn't protected (it's not eligible for trademark; it's not unique) and the image above is certainly not derivative of WotC's property (the idea of a floating eyeball that shoots death beams has been around way before D & D). About the only thing left to worry about is if the beholder in this game behaves and has the same lore as the D & D beholder. You can't own an idea.
EDIT: The resemblance to product identity here, though, is definitely a cause for concern. Maybe just change the name, like Dyhalto says.
EDIT 2: Of course, then again, a number of artists authors do specifically use the D & D version of the beholder without a license in their works and WotC has never complained about it that I can find or have ever heard of.
EDIT: The resemblance to product identity here, though, is definitely a cause for concern. Maybe just change the name, like Dyhalto says.
EDIT 2: Of course, then again, a number of artists authors do specifically use the D & D version of the beholder without a license in their works and WotC has never complained about it that I can find or have ever heard of.
Red_Nova
Sir Redd of Novus: He who made Prayer of the Faithless that one time, and that was pretty dang rad! :D
9192
Actually, it does violate copyright for D&D. Square themselves nearly got sued because they had a beholder enemy in the original Final Fantasy.
The original sprite:
When the game was given an international release (and every future release/remake/etc.), the name of the monster was changed to Evil Eye, and the sprite was changed to this:
The original sprite:
When the game was given an international release (and every future release/remake/etc.), the name of the monster was changed to Evil Eye, and the sprite was changed to this:
time to rename it Beerholder
This was my inspiration, btw. From Dragon Warrior.
...which was probably inspired by D&D anyway
This was my inspiration, btw. From Dragon Warrior.
...which was probably inspired by D&D anyway
Red_Nova
Actually, it does violate copyright for D&D. Square themselves nearly got sued because they had a beholder enemy in the original Final Fantasy.
The original sprite:
Well...that is pretty distinctly specifically what is in D & D. Of course, that's copyrighted.
Red_Nova
Sir Redd of Novus: He who made Prayer of the Faithless that one time, and that was pretty dang rad! :D
9192
The name of the original monster was also Beholder. Whatever reason for the name change (the name itself was copyrighted so Square couldn't keep it, Square made a whole new monster so they wanted to give it a new name, the name itself may or may not be copyright but Square just wanted to err on the safe side, etc.), the fact is that the entire enemy was replaced with something original.
I included the visuals because I wanted to give the whole story as I understood it and all the facts I knew about that particular situation.
I included the visuals because I wanted to give the whole story as I understood it and all the facts I knew about that particular situation.
The FF1 Beholder incident has always been a bit baffling, since Mindflayers are also trademarked property and yet Final Fantasy has been using those for decades.
I wonder if it was one of those things that they got pissy about once but never again, because I can't think of any other instances where they went after people for using a beholder.
I wonder if it was one of those things that they got pissy about once but never again, because I can't think of any other instances where they went after people for using a beholder.
coolopotomus
Shame if this is a C&D issue. The eyeball detail on this guy is beautiful
No, it's not. That thing up above is clearly an unique creation, and he has been given a very cool, unique name, Druin.
author=pianotmcoolopotomusNo, it's not. That thing up above is clearly an unique creation, and he has been given a very cool,
Shame if this is a C&D issue. The eyeball detail on this guy is beautifuluniquename, Druin.
fixed.
author=SgtMettool
The FF1 Beholder incident has always been a bit baffling, since Mindflayers are also trademarked property and yet Final Fantasy has been using those for decades.
I wonder if it was one of those things that they got pissy about once but never again, because I can't think of any other instances where they went after people for using a beholder.
You mean the spell-less WIZARD and SORCERER? Those guys are jerks, they have the can't run flag and SORCERER have OHKO attacks. Fuck them!
(it could be that Mind Flayers/Illithids aren't actually trademarked, or it's a weak trademark that wouldn't hold up in court if fought, or the difference of Computer Game and Tabletop Game was great enough for it to not matter, or negligence that WotC/Hasbro didn't defend the Mind Flayer trademark fighting it later would get the whole thing discarded, idk. I'm not a lawyer so all I've got is my wild spitballin' all over)
now back to your regular
e: on second thought maybe it's too much shit
Well, Illithids/Mind Flayers are based off Cthuhlu, right? So they couldn't really claim that as wholly original. An eyeball with mouth, though?
Anyway, this is a giant eye tentacle. There's no mouth included so it's not a beholder...
Anyway, this is a giant eye tentacle. There's no mouth included so it's not a beholder...
author=Liberty
Well, Illithids/Mind Flayers are based off Cthuhlu, right? So they couldn't really claim that as wholly original. An eyeball with mouth, though?
Anyway, this is a giant eye tentacle. There's no mouth included so it's not a beholder...
Giant eyes are based off Cyaegha. A lesser known Elder God.
Pages:
1