IP has pretty clear connotation in games. I don't really think it shows what you say. Characters and worlds are IP and that IP can be used across media types. Gameplay is not IP. A game project can swap or take in IP.
In context of the discussion here - people who are talking about "content" or "IP" mark themselves out as not having a nuanced understanding of what intangible assets they hold.
I think what you mean to say is:
- writing and depictions of characters are copyrighted
- writing and depictions of worlds are copyrighted
- some of the names involved can also be registered trademarks
They are intangible rights that someone can own. The insidious term "intellectual property" is used to reframe the understanding of rights granted by copyright, patent and trademark law by comparing them to real property, which they are not.
When was the last time someone was allowed to live in your house, legally, because they're making a parody of it? When was the last time someone was allowed to take your house apart to find out how to make something compatible with your house's design? Owning a copyright is not like owning property and does not give you carte-blanche control over your intangible asset like real property law more-or-less does.
Some examples:
- I can write a book or game about a boy wizard who goes to a magical school, as long as I didn't base it on Harry Potter. JK Rowling can't stop me.
- I can write about a pirate who acts like an aging rockstar, provided I didn't copy Johnny Depp's depiction of Captain Jack Sparrow. Disney can't stop me.
- I can write about a martial force voyaging through space by analogy to a similar force on the Earth's seas, so I can call them space marines. Games Workshop® can't stop me, provided I don't implicitly or explicitly claim they are Games Workshop® Space Marines®
Assuming that “property” is always short for “real property” will lead to some interesting errors, as illustrated above.
Proprietary rights are varied. If one kind of property relates to a kind of right that doesn’t apply to another kind of property, that’s not a good reason to decide that one kind is not actually property.
While property has a number of meanings, including "intrinsic quality of a substance" and "something that can be owned", I think it tends to bring about an image of tangible objects in the listener's head.
I prefer the term "asset" to describe owned intangible things of value, such as rights, licenses, financial instruments, etc.
> Criticism of the term intellectual property ranges from discussing its vagueness and abstract overreach to direct contention to the semantic validity of using words like property and rights in fashions that contradict practice and law. Many detractors think this term specially serves the doctrinal agenda of parties opposing reform in the public interest or otherwise abusing related legislations, and that it disallows intelligent discussion about specific and often unrelated aspects of copyright, patents, trademarks, etc
If you use a catch-all term like "content" when you could've said "prose", "video", "music" and so on I'll assume you either don't know about the difference or you don't care - or indeed both.
The same goes for "IP" when you could've said trademarks, copyrights, patents, trade secrets and so on, whatever is actually relevant.
IP is the standard way of describing pre-existing content e.g. games, books that is available to turn into movies, TV shows etc.
You can go on and on about whether this is accurate or not but no one cares. Because this is the term that the entire industry has adopted because getting into the specifics of trademarks, copyrights etc is irrelevant for most parts.
