Grimrock

Nope, this one is exactly the design from dungeon master! And my own work. Wizard eye, no beholder

Patch wrote:
That looks great, but using it in a mod would worry me a little. It is very close looking to a Beholder (one of my favorite monsters), which is exclusively owned by Wizards of the Coast.

Not really...even doom had their own beholder....i think it would be ok. Though i haven`t seen the one owned by WOTC.

germanny wrote:Nope, this one is exactly the design from dungeon master! And my own work. Wizard eye, no beholder

Well then it would be infringing on whoever owns Dungeon Master.

It is pretty close though, and with how lawsuit happy companies are these days, I wouldn't be surprised if a mod using it may get a C&D because of it.

And please, don't take that as me not liking your work. The thing looks awesome. I want to get surprised by it in a dungeon, killed, reload, and try to figure out a way to trick it into falling into a pit so I can get past it to the obvious treasure it must be protecting.

Dragonkin wrote:

Patch wrote:
That looks great, but using it in a mod would worry me a little. It is very close looking to a Beholder (one of my favorite monsters), which is exclusively owned by Wizards of the Coast.

Not really...even doom had their own beholder....i think it would be ok. Though i haven`t seen the one owned by WOTC.

Yeah, that was the Cacodemon. It's such a fine line when it comes to original work vs work based off other work vs copy infringement.

The beholder has changed a lot over the years. From the original, to the modern one.

Original was hilarious, but the modern was sca~ry. So maybe remove the tentacles and maybe just add more eyes on the main body and call it the eye-holder

I always loved this one.

Patch wrote:

germanny wrote:Nope, this one is exactly the design from dungeon master! And my own work. Wizard eye, no beholder

Well then it would be infringing on whoever owns Dungeon Master.

It is pretty close though, and with how lawsuit happy companies are these days, I wouldn't be surprised if a mod using it may get a C&D because of it.

And please, don't take that as me not liking your work. The thing looks awesome. I want to get surprised by it in a dungeon, killed, reload, and try to figure out a way to trick it into falling into a pit so I can get past it to the obvious treasure it must be protecting.

If it isn't their exact model they own nothing. Otherwise every fantasy game in existence would be infringing on someone's rights.

Patchumz wrote:

Patch wrote:

germanny wrote:Nope, this one is exactly the design from dungeon master! And my own work. Wizard eye, no beholder

Well then it would be infringing on whoever owns Dungeon Master.

It is pretty close though, and with how lawsuit happy companies are these days, I wouldn't be surprised if a mod using it may get a C&D because of it.

And please, don't take that as me not liking your work. The thing looks awesome. I want to get surprised by it in a dungeon, killed, reload, and try to figure out a way to trick it into falling into a pit so I can get past it to the obvious treasure it must be protecting.

If it isn't their exact model they own nothing. Otherwise every fantasy game in existence would be infringing on someone's rights.

Not exactly. Most fantasy monsters are creative commons. A select few though (like the Beholder), are held by certain companies. But really that's the whole point. It's such a fine line. So many people have so many views. It's best, when you're not a company with legal protection, to play it on the safe side.

Just a word of advice: Never mess with Wizards of the coast when it comes to copyright things. They take no prisoners!


But yeah, the beholder as a concept goes into other games as well, but always tweaked, a little or much, to avoid that particular issue.

Many monsters have a base in mythology, from many many possible places. Those cannot be copyrighted. Unique monsters, like the Beholder or the Tarrasque, can.