Would this be as inappropriate as I think?

philreed · Aug 7, 2005

From a thread discussing Spycraft 2.0 and how to create supplements for its rules without using the Spycraft trademark:

Cergorach said:
I was thinking of a sci-fi settening and thought that SpaceCraft as a title would get the point across (although it might be a bit confusing). For a fantasy setting MageCraft would do the trick ;-)

How about "For use with the 2nd edition of the ogl spy genre roleplaying game."?

The second suggestion "For use with the 2nd edition of the ogl spy genre roleplaying game." strikes me as questionable but not crossing any lines. It's very similar to the "For use with the world's greatest fantasy RPG" I've seen used.

It's the first -- the creation of SpaceCraft, MageCraft, and _____Craft titles -- suggestion that triggers my "this isn't right" button. Technically, from a legal view, it's just fine and a very good idea. But something about it just makes me feel that it's slightly dishonest and inappropriate.

What do others think?

Tinner · Aug 7, 2005

While AEG may not own the names "Spacecraft" and "Magecraft" using those names with the slogan "for use with the blah blah OGL spy game" is clearly playing off their IP.
AFAIK that might be legal, but it certainly isn't very neighborly.
That said, it sounds like something that could be a great product if the author wanted to license it.
Doesn't AEG have a "Powered by Spycraft" license similar to the MM Superlink? Or am I misremembering?
If they do, that would be the ideal way to handle "Spacecraft" and "Magecraft" IMO.

TheLostSoul · Aug 7, 2005

I second Tinner's post

philreed · Aug 7, 2005

Tinner said:
Doesn't AEG have a "Powered by Spycraft" license similar to the MM Superlink? Or am I misremembering?

They did. Now they have "Spycraft Family." My understanding is that "Powered by Spycraft" is no more.

And the new edition does include information for people contacting them about using the OGC in the book. My main reason for this poll is that I wonder if others felt the same way I do about the "SpaceCraft, MageCraft" idea.

dpmcalister · Aug 7, 2005

I'm pretty sure "Powered by Spycraft" still exists. I'd e-mail Patrick Kapera (pkapera[at]alderac[dot]com) and check with him.

Andre · Aug 7, 2005

Tinner said:
AFAIK that might be legal, but it certainly isn't very neighborly.

Why? If someone produced material intended for use with AE, would it be inappropriate to use the title "Arcana Expanded"? If so, would it be inappropriate to use that title with material intended for use with 3.x spellcasting, not AE? Just how much verbal territory is a publisher allowed to stake out, simply by publishing a set of rules?

philreed · Aug 7, 2005

Andre said:
Why? If someone produced material intended for use with AE, would it be inappropriate to use the title "Arcana Expanded"?

Absolutely.

Andre said:
If so, would it be inappropriate to use that title with material intended for use with 3.x spellcasting, not AE? Just how much verbal territory is a publisher allowed to stake out, simply by publishing a set of rules?

I'd say yes.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be a smart and intelligent course of action. The thing is, this a small industry and I think that the more publishers respect each other (no matter the sizes involved) the friendlier the industry will remain. Actions specifically taken to take advantage of another publisher's trademarks, without permission, (or worse, to intentionally harm another publisher) should be frowned upon by every member of the community, including gamers. Of course, this is just my opinion and doesn't really mean anything.

It's also part of the reason I feel it's inappropriate to strip complete chunks of OGC from a product and distribute it -- especially if nothing new is added. I'm not saying it's wrong but, rather, that it's (as mentioned above) not very neighborly.

Morgenstern · Aug 7, 2005

I want you to know how refreshing it is to find a discussion of what would be ethical (and tasteful) instead of what would be legal

.

"Powered by Spycraft" arrangements defintiely still exist, complete with official logo. There are several levels of involvement, so checking with AEG is a must if you want official recognition. Patrick has been mentioned, but you might also try the brand manager.

Ken Carpenter <kcarpenter@alderac.com>

Me? I'd love to see what you do with the engine!

Roudi · Aug 7, 2005

I'd like to point out that Blizzard Entertainment was using the "____Craft" gravy train well before AEG. Phil, I say go right ahead and use the "___Craft" titular convention... just let me know when you do MechaCraft.

Justin D. Jacobson · Aug 7, 2005

Agreed. It seems clear to me that it would be legal, but I don't think it would be appropriate without at least running it by AEG.

By way of comparison, I checked with Monte before using AEvolutions as my product line name for AE support products.

Would this be as inappropriate as I think?

Would a title designed to mimic Spycraft be inappropriate?

Yes.

No.

Yes and no aren't the type of answers I feel this question desrves. I've answered below.

philreed

Adventurer

Tinner

First Post

TheLostSoul

Explorer

philreed

Adventurer

dpmcalister

Explorer

Andre

Explorer

philreed

Adventurer

Morgenstern

First Post

Roudi

First Post

Justin D. Jacobson

First Post

Similar Threads