PETITION: Keep the term 'Adventure Path' Open Source!

[takasi]

Do they have to? Mind you, I never thought to look until now (and I'm not at home right now so I can't look) but I don't remember seeing a d20 logo on any of their post-Dungeon/Dragon products. I notice that they make sure to put "(OGL)" after all their products. If it is only OGL and not d20, they can declare anything that isn't previously OGL as IP. Good for them if they do declare "Adventure Path" as IP.

Of course they don't have to do this. No one if forcing them. I just don't like it as a customer.

I like the term, and I plan, as a customer, to keep using it generically. I would hope publishers could do the same.

 

[Dragonblade]

You may be right. You may be wrong. I for one wouldn't be so sure either way.

I agree. I'm not totally sure, but given the nature of companies protecting themselves whenever they license any property to anyone else, they usually take ownership of anything derived from that property. I would just be shocked if WotC didn't have a legal claim to the term.

 

[takasi]

Aren't all the new monsters that appear in Pathfinder and Gamemastery open content? I thought they were (along with some of the magic items).

OK, I'm in big trouble. Yes, it is open content. Sorry for the alarmism!

I retract everything bad I said about Paizo and open content. I've edited my comments above.

However, I still think the term Adventure Path should also be open. If not, there should be a generic industry standard term for a series of adventures that's a "campaign saga" or campaign in a box.

 

[dmccoy1693]

there should be a generic industry standard term

You mean like Kleenex, Jello, etc?

 

[Piratecat]

I'm completely fine with Paizo keeping the term Adventure Path. It's one of the things that distinguishes their products.

 

[takasi]

You mean like Kleenex, Jello, etc?

I pointed that out to them. Here is their response:

"For the record, Kleenex is also not a generic term—it's a registered trademark. While the general public often uses the term incorrectly, you won't find anyone other than Kimberly-Clark marketing their facial tissues with the word Kleenex."

 

[takasi]

I'm completely fine with Paizo keeping the term Adventure Path. It's one of the things that distinguishes their products.

Not to me it doesn't. It distinguishes a campaign in a box published for Dungeon Magazine, which is owned by Wizards of the Coast.

"Pathfinder Chronicles", to me, distinguishes Paizo's line.

 

[Cadfan]

Trademark is based on a "first use in commerce" system.

I see two likely possibilities. There are more, but I think these are the most likely.

The first is that Paizo contracted to sell WOTC the rights to publish "Adventure Path" products in Dungeon magazine. In that case Paizo has rights to the trademark, unless contracts specifically say otherwise.

The second is that Paizo had a general contract to publish Dungeon and Dragon magazines, and WOTC had a clause in the contract giving them ownership of EVERYTHING that appeared in it. This would give WOTC the trademark rights to "Adventure Path."

The way stuff gets done in the real world suggests that number 2 is how things went down. I think its more likely that there was a half assed contract with a lot of generic clauses giving WOTC rights to everything in Dungeon Magazine, including all intellectual property.

This is especially likely if Adventure Path was invented as a term after the contract was signed, because then you'd be delving into non compete issues. The usual rule is that if I contract to publish a magazine for you on, say, fishing, I don't get to go do fishing article related activities outside of my job at the magazine. Any fishing article related stuff I come up with will be your property. This is to stop contracted companies and persons from running side projects that pay them directly.

The real way this will get resolved is on a "does WOTC care?" basis. If they don't, Paizo will get the term. If they do, there will be a showdown, and we'll find out what the contracts really say.

 

[Aloïsius]

I'm completely fine with Paizo keeping the term Adventure Path. It's one of the things that distinguishes their products.

How were called the 3e modules, starting with The Sunless citadel ?

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

How were called the 3e modules, starting with The Sunless citadel ?

I think I recall them being promoted as an Adventure Series.

I personally don't care if Paizo manages to trademark the phrase. There are other terms other publishers could use. Besides, to me Adventure Path indicates Dungeon, when Paizo published it. It would be natural to continue to associate the term with them.