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

[Lonely Tylenol]

Yes Mistwell, I also looked that up. It's their petition, I don't think it's final yet.



I may want to publish one day. Or someone else might.

Then you will have to publish your series of adventures with a name other than Adventure Path. I hardly see that as a barrier to success, and I hardly see why anyone owes you the right to use that mark.

Or I may want to setup shop as a retailer one day and advertise all of the adventure paths to potential DMs.

Or I may just want a simple, universal term that I can use to search for a series of modules that encapsulate a campaign.

Well, whatever the generic name for that type of module series is going to turn out to be, it won't be Adventure Path.

They may be killing off products developed in the future by their actions today.

We're going to need to see a hell of a lot of evidence backing up this hypothesis, or else I think we can safely dismiss it as groundless speculation.

Pathfinder Chronicles is a brand. Gamemastery is a brand. Adventure path is a product type. I think the industry needs the name to help improve the quantity and quality of that product type.

Does the industry think that?

 

[carmachu]

I may want to publish one day. Or someone else might.

Or I may want to setup shop as a retailer one day and advertise all of the adventure paths to potential DMs.

Or I may just want a simple, universal term that I can use to search for a series of modules that encapsulate a campaign.

They may be killing off products developed in the future by their actions today.

So they shouldnt trademark because of a 'maybe'?

Thats silly in the extreme. Some of those you will be able to do...like if your a retailer, you'll be able to advertise their products of 'adventure paths'.

Pathfinder Chronicles is a brand. Gamemastery is a brand. Adventure path is a product type. I think the industry needs the name to help improve the quantity and quality of that product type.

AND adventure paths is a brand. When someone says "adventure path' they think Age of Worms, Shackled City, Savage Tide, Pathfinder items....ie, PIAZO.

No one else has MADE adventure paths. Or successfully. There is absolutely no reason they should NOT own the trademark, since they created it successfully.

 

[The Little Raven]

I'd be very surprised if their contract with WotC to publish Dragon and Dungeon did not give WotC rights to anything Paizo created and published in those magazines. Very surprised indeed.

I asked about Shadow of the Spider Moon specifically, and got this reply.

We don't. All of the game material and contents that appeared in the magazines is owned by Wizards of the Coast.

James Jacobs
Editor-in-Chief, Pathfinder
Paizo Publishing, LLC
Phone: 425-289-1355
FAX: 425-289-0073

So, I don't think this is exactly clear-cut.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I asked about Shadow of the Spider Moon specifically, and got this reply.



So, I don't think this is exactly clear-cut.

That's copyright, not trademark. Wizards owns the copyright of everything published by their licensee. However, trademarks are covered by a completely different set of rules, the pertinent one being that you do not own a trademark until you officially register it.

 

[Mistwell]

That's copyright, not trademark. Wizards owns the copyright of everything published by their licensee. However, trademarks are covered by a completely different set of rules, the pertinent one being that you do not own a trademark until you officially register it.

Well, true and false.

True that copyright and trademark are different, and the full content is covered by copyright.

False that you don't own a trademark until you officially register it. There are common law and State law rights to Trademark, and one reason the official registry with the Feds asks about your date of first use is to establish your common-law first-use rights.

Also false that publishing the words in the magazine has nothing to do with getting it trademarked. Again, first-use in interstate commerce is crucial to a federally registered trademark. If WOTC owns the first-use, or was using it for years without any cease and desist from Paizo and with Paizo's knowledge, then WOTC can make claim to the trademark. They can also use it to challenge the Paizo application for trademark (either now, during the publication period, or later with a lawsuit).

Realistically I suspect this has already been worked out behind the scenes or will be if it ever becomes an issue.

 

[kenmarable]

Leaving aside the legal argument, which I think is fruitless since it's up to lawyers and the trademark office...

It's not just marketing. If I tell people I'm going to run an adventure path, they know I mean I'm running a series of modules from first to an end point. It's not an open ended campaign. There will be an overarching plot, developed by a third party, and it will not be something the DM has developed on his own. It will guide the entire course of the campaign.

There's nothing stopping you from telling people you are running an adventure path (or campaign saga, or adventure series, or published campaign, or...). It is a restriction on publishers, not consumers.

It should be a term that both publishers and consumers can use to communicate with each effectively when identifying a product type.

I still don't see why it should be that way. Arguing that it already is, that's one thing. Using the word "should" implies an imperative here, to which I reply, why? Why should it when there are many, many other ways of doing the exact same thing?

I disagree. It's not brand identity. Pathfinder Chronicles is a brand. GameMastery is a brand. Adventure path is not a brand, it's a term used to describe a series of modules that encapsulates a campaign.

I disagree. A term used to describe a product type be used as a brand. And I bet that Paizo could easily build it into a very successful brand. There's no hard and fast rule for what can and cannot be a brand. It's all in how much and effectively a company markets that brand.

It hampers our ability to find these products easily.

I just don't buy this. I really, really don't think people are unaware of what EN Publishing's "War of the Burning Sky" adventures are (go buy them, plug plug) because they are called a "campaign saga" rather than an "adventure path". Using a different term isn't hampering people's ability to find those products at all.

Name recognition is important in finding available products to compare. Having a set of key words like "adventure path" attached to a type of product makes it easier for the community trying to buy, sell and compare these products.

Hmm... I don't see RPGNow/DriveThruRpg using the term "adventure path". YourGamesNow doesn't use it. Amazon doesn't use it. Neither of my FLGS use that term. For reviews, I don't see any major review sites using the term to flag certain products.

I can see it being useful to flag those products, BUT first off, again there are plenty of other terms, and secondly, I don't see anyone doing it anyway.


Again, I'll grant that the term may be too generic and public so that Paizo's trademark isn't legally legitimate (and/or WotC saying "No it's ours.").

But I certainly don't see the harm that you apparently do if the trademark is granted. It doesn't prevent consumers from using the term. It doesn't prevent reviewers from using the term. It doesn't prevent publishers from producing linked adventures, nor any of us talking about them using whatever terms we want. The products are still pretty darn obvious whatever they are called. Publishers just can't explicitly use the term "adventure path" in their advertisements or on the products themselves. That's it. I just don't see the problem here.

 

[Puggins]

The arguments being bandied about this thread aren't mutually exclusive.

* Paizo DID NOT coin the term Adventure Path or innovate the model of an adventure path. WotC did both with the Adventure Path Adventures which began with Sunless Citadel

* Paizo did, however, build on the initial concept and (arguably) improved it considerably.

* There is nothing keeping Paizo from attempting to trademark the term.

* Of course, that doesn't mean they would get it.

* Unless WotC allowed them to trademark it. Imagine that... some gracious cooperation between the two companies! That can't possibly happen, can it?!?

In other words, this all hinges on whether Wotc (a) cares about the term and (b) has come to an agreement with Paizo on the trademark and its usage. Since, they're using the term for the SWSE adventures they're publishing online, I'm willing to bet that there is some amount of cooperation going on (shocker!!)

 

[grimslade]

The problem comes when WotC wants to use Adventure Path again in Dungeon or in Organized Play. I don't want the lawyers coming out because Hasbro has more of them. The case looks pretty murky from the outside and that means a prolonged legal battle which drains profits and attention away from Paizo and WotC future products. The contract language at the end of the Dragon/Dungeon license may have language granting Adventure Path to Paizo for all we know. I don't want to see Paizo stop producing their awesome products because of the term 'Adventure Path'.
The term is really not that stellar, other than hearking back to the fantastic Age of Worms, Savage Tide and Cauldron adventures.
Complete Campaign works better because of the alliteration.;P Hasn't Sinister Secret of the Saltmarsh taught us anything?

 

[Cthulhudrew]

(And ironically, Pathfinder was announced right around the time the Pathfinder movie came out. I'm sure that confused more than a few retailers.)

What- are you suggesting they ordered prints of the movie instead of the game?

 

[James Jacobs]

What- are you suggesting they ordered prints of the movie instead of the game?

Perhaps! Just like that one game store that went out of business when they accidently ordered six dozen products from Nissan...