Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
David's posts Post Back to profile
Top-level
Emelia/Emi

@davidrevoy FYI on the alt-text (not intended as criticism): that particular type of monster is generally known in English as a "Mimic" given that they 'mimic' treasure chests. And in panel two she throws a bone 'at' the mimic, not 'to' it ('to' implies she's intending for the mimic to catch it, while 'at' implies she wants to hit it with the bone).

For some reason this reminds me of "The Luggage" from Discworld... (basically a mimic that acts like a very overprotective dog, and also happens to function like a self-propelled larger-on-the-inside luggage trunk)

15 May at 17:14 | Wall-to-wall | Open on tech.lgbt
2 comments
David Revoy

@becomethewaifu Thank you. yes, the Luggage reference is wanted (Discworld fan here 😉 ).
The Mimic is a DnD name at origin (so copyright?) but the creature exist in many fantasy games, anime, and books. That's why I prefered to avoid this name. On a personal note: I like the versions in Dragon Quest or in Secret of Mana.

15 May at 17:18 | Open on framapiaf.org
Emelia/Emi

@davidrevoy Honestly calling it a mimic is perfectly fine, because names are generally handled under trademark, not copyright, and trademark almost always requires that a mark not be 'generic' or 'purely descriptive'. And given that calling "a monster mimicking a thing" (treasure chest, chair, etc.) 'a mimic' is about as descriptive as you can get, any attempt at 'enforcement' would likely be grounds for sanctions against the lawyers that filed it with how purely-descriptive it is.

Now the term 'Hobbit' on the other hand, that was made up by Tolkien, and his descendants are dead set on keeping that trademark/copyright money-train going as long as they're legally able to, which is why almost everything else uses the term 'halfling' instead (which predates DnD by "a few centuries", and is thus also free to use)

@davidrevoy Honestly calling it a mimic is perfectly fine, because names are generally handled under trademark, not copyright, and trademark almost always requires that a mark not be 'generic' or 'purely descriptive'. And given that calling "a monster mimicking a thing" (treasure chest, chair, etc.) 'a mimic' is about as descriptive as you can get, any attempt at 'enforcement' would likely be grounds for sanctions against the lawyers that filed it with how purely-descriptive it is.

15 May at 17:45 | Open on tech.lgbt
Go Up