What is your position/connection to Gygax Games and/or Gail Gygax? You seem to have been informally representing Gygax Games's and/or Gail Gygax's interests online for a few years or more but I was never sure if there is an official connection. Do you represent either in a legal capacity? You seem to have some understanding of the law. Are you perhaps just a friend who also happens to be a lawyer?
There's no official connection. I was friends with Gary for over 15 years. While I guess you could count the stuff I contributed as "pro bono freelance", I not either an employee or freelancer of Gygax Games, nor do I plan on it in the forseeable future. In fact, I'm one of the few people who worked with Gary who doesn't really want a career in the publishing or game industry.
I've simply maintained a friendship with Gail since Gary died. On occasion, she will ask me to clarify things online as a favor, like I did in the thread before Morrus was contacted, but other than that, my opinions are my own. Admittedly, this gives me a bias of my own, as I have not had the opportunity to befriend Gary's kids, so in the case of family disagreements I'm only hearing one side, and my level of friendship (IMO) is just minor. And that's why I'm treading carefully.
I chime in on threads like this for two reasons. There's a tendency for people to jump in and see things without doing a lot of research, and I feel obligated to be truthful and try to correct misconceptions about Gary's past and his feelings--a lot of people just look to the "old days" and don't pay attention to other things Gary did, for instance. Also, I see Gail taking a beating for taking an unpopular stance with Gary's works, and while I think there is room for respectful disagreements, people need to remember that she's the spouse Gary was married to for almost 25 years, and games weren't the most important thing in his life.
As far as law goes--I just find creative rights and IP law fascinating, and have been involved in researching cases and helping other people out as a layman.
My own involvement here is just as a fan who is also a regular Gary Con attendee who wants to see MORE celebration of Gary's legacy, not less, and who wishes all parties to be more active in bringing that end about.
I have no objection to the Gygax sons publishing their own magazine, nor to GaryCon itself. I sincerely believe they want to just have some fun with gamers and work on their own creative endeavors, and I'm sure Gary would be proud of them for finally getting involved in a major way with game development. Heck, I'll pick up a few issues and see what it's like.
My only objection is the confusing name--I believe they need to respect how their Dad left things and don't make it look like they have "inherited the throne", nor attempt to try to trademark the term "Gygax" by itself (which is how the logo looks), which I think is what Gail meant by respect. I'm sure Gary would object to the use of the surname by itself on a magazine if he was not involved in it at all. If they were actually more involved in Gary's creative efforts, were being groomed as the heirs both legal and creative (with Gary making specific statements to that regard), etc., and then suddenly they were cut out by Gail, I could see my opinion being different, but that doesn't appear to be the case here.
Speaking of Law, I believe S'Mon is right about the TSR thing. Abandonment of the Trademark rather than never having it in the first place,
An abandoned mark is not irrevocably in the public domain, but may instead be re-registered by any party which has re-established exclusive and active use, and must be associated or linked with the original mark owner. That's a pretty grey area to deal with. I know of at least one lawsuit where a music group's members got control of their trademark based on the goodwill (they being the original members, having a stable line-up) in a case the original production company was dissolved via bankruptcy and there was no legal transfer or assets from the owner's old company to new company, so there was no history of a registered mark. If, however, he could have proved abandonment of the mark, the group might have actually lost the case.
Anyway, I think Right of Publicity, even if it conflicts with Trademark law, could come into play. There's a good web site dealing with case precedent in the US.
http://rightofpublicity.com/notable-cases
