Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6189848" data-attributes="member: 37579">Read closer. “Nominative Use” applies when actually dealing with the branded content. You’re allowed to say “DUNGEONS & DRAGONS” the trademarked brand if you’re referencing the actual product. For example, Paizo is allowed to say “DUNGEONS & DRAGONS” when advertising WotC products being sold on their website, and could conceivably use related trademarks such as the logos, book covers, etc.“Descriptive Use/Non-trademark Use” applies when referring to the words in the brand but not as the brand. You’re allowed to say “dungeons & dragons” when referring to dragons in dungeons. Because you’re using the English words “dungeons & dragons” not the trademarked brand “DUNGEONS & DRAGONS”. This is the big difference between "trademark" and "copyright".  For examples, Paizo could use the term “dungeons & dragons” to advertise their adventure Dragon’s Demand as that features both dragons and dungeons.There’s two other times you can use a trademarked term that are not mentioned in the linked article. There’s “comparative use”, which isn’t referenced in that site. You are allowed to say “four out of five cola drinkers prefer Pepsi to Coke”. So long as you can back-up the statement, or else it becomes libelous. This is a particular tricky line: there’s a reason you don’t see political style attack ads between competing brands. For example, Paizo could say “it’s cheaper to start playing PATHFINDER than DUNGEONS & DRAGONS” because they can point to the PFRD and that the total MSRP of the Beginner Box is less than the total MSRP of the Essentials line. Lastly, there’s unrelated markets. This is where two companies might share the trademark for a name because there’s no possibility of confusion between the two brands, or the mistaken belief that one is a licenced product of the other brand. For example, Paizo can use the term “PATHFINDER” despite that being the trademark of Nissan because you are not going to confuse a book and a car. A fan site is not referring to the brand to describe content it is authorized to sell. A fan site is not using the terms as a description unrelated to the brand. It is the brand. A fan site is not comparing the two products. There’s no review, let alone a quantifiable comparison.A fan site creating content for for an RPG isnot an unrelated market, it’s being aimed at the exact same market as the offical products are being market towards.Nor is it protected under any other Fair Use/ Fair Dealing laws as it is not a review or a parody. As for "compatible with", this is something much larger companies have struggled with. <a href="http://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/guidelinesfor3rdparties.html" target="_blank">Apple</a> and <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/intellectualproperty/Trademarks/Usage/Windows.aspx" target="_blank">Microsoft</a> both have detailed guidelines on designing the packaging of compatible products, as they cannot approve anything nor do they want to start dozens of lawsuits over misrepresented products. Because if someone gets upset at Apple because they bought a mouse that they thought was an Apple mouse that was low quality or didn't work then it hurts their company. WotC has a similar policy, only it's a part of the SRD and OGL/GSL. The restrictions are very clear as they don't want 3PP mistaken for their official products.A fan site designed around creating new content operates in a grey area, along with fan fiction. If the edition is dead it is not taking away any profits WotC is unlikely to take action, as it's not targeting an audience they're directly courting. It may not be legal, but as D&D enables and encourages imagination 'n' creativity, it’s hard to avoid people posting their own content online, even if those eventually overlap with official content. TSR fought long and hard over this, and that was back when the internet was much smaller. They even often overlook sites that use their IP, such as posting mind flayer statblocks or NPCs. I posted a number of subraces on a blog focused on PC content, including a race that WotC eventually made their own version of. I doubt WotC will waste the time and resources to shut down the site over my attempt at a tinker gnome, but I have no delusions that they could and would be entirely legally authorized to do so. Because my work was derivative of their product. But all this changes when the fan site moves from providing  supplementary content to replacement content. Which most 4e sites seem to want to do. There are a good dozen attempts to make a “4e Pathfinder”. Which likely crosses the line from “accessory supporting official products” to “product competing with official products”.We also don't know what WotC's policy is going to be moving forward. Now that they're moving to "support all of D&D" and offering their back catalogue online as PDFs. If they'll ignore people making a 4.5e or if they've view that as a potential threat to sales of 5e and its 4e-esque modules. And not knowing, it's easier to be cautious and not leave yourself open to be shut down.</blockquote>

Verification