Would this be as inappropriate as I think?

[S'mon]

IMO ethically and legally (leaving aside the OGL) "based on the spycraft rules system, published by etc etc" would be ok, but IMO Magecraft or Spacecraft (!) would not be as it appears confusingly similar to the Spycraft logo and a customer might well think it was a product authorised by the publishers of Spycraft, hence potential trademark infringement.

 

[DaveMage]

IMO ethically and legally (leaving aside the OGL) "based on the spycraft rules system, published by etc etc" would be ok, but IMO Magecraft or Spacecraft (!) would not be as it appears confusingly similar to the Spycraft logo and a customer might well think it was a product authorised by the publishers of Spycraft, hence potential trademark infringement.

If someone wrote a book called SpaceCraft, I'd think it was a book about starships...

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I am glad that I read the actual topic before answering the poll - at first I thought that you wer asking if it was alright to write a title using the Spycraft system rather than asking if the title itself was a good choice.

I agree, it is playing too close to the original title, making it sound like an official release in the line.

That said - I reall like the ideas, just not the titles.

The Auld Grump duh, duh, dun, da da dadadada, why is the theme from Spyhunter rolling through my head?

 

[dpmcalister]

Patrick has been mentioned, but you might also try the brand manager.

Ken Carpenter <kcarpenter@alderac.com>

My bad. Sorry, I should have pointed you in that direction in the first place

 

[Andre]

Absolutely.

Again, why? Just to be clear, I'm looking at this as a non-publisher, so some things that may seem obvious to you are not to me.

'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.

Two points here. Obviously, trying to damage another's product is off-limits. So is misrepresenting one's own product as the publisher's. For instance, how many times have we seen a box that looks *almost* identical to Tide or Windex at the dollar stores? Those products are clearly trying to defraud the consumer.

But, if a publisher refuses for whatever reason to allow use of its trademark by another publisher, does that mean the other publisher has no recourse to any action which the first publisher dislikes? Does the first publisher get a veto over the product name? Does it get rights to edit the product? Just to be "friendly"? Again, just because someone is first in using a particular naming convention, does that give them ownership - no matter what?

Second, while I feel it's correct to communicate with a publisher when seeking to publish their OGC, what if the publisher refuses? Legally, they don't have that right, but many publishers try to do this. If the second publisher goes ahead and uses (legally) the OGC material, who's being "unfriendly" and "unethical" - the first publisher, the second, or both?

It just strikes me that this is not a black and white issue. A publisher can act in a manner that seems ethical and considerate to him, which another publisher takes serious exception to. There can be a large number of mitigating factors involved, and asking the entire community (including gamers) to frown on this specific behavior is too broad, IMO. In the end, I'd have to judge a publisher's actions in total - not just this isolated action, especially if I don't have all the facts (and I won't).

 

[philreed]

But, if a publisher refuses for whatever reason to allow use of its trademark by another publisher, does that mean the other publisher has no recourse to any action which the first publisher dislikes? Does the first publisher get a veto over the product name? Does it get rights to edit the product? Just to be "friendly"? Again, just because someone is first in using a particular naming convention, does that give them ownership - no matter what?

I think this would be a "per case" and "per publisher" situation. Obviously if a publisher that you approach says "You can't use our trademark" then that is that. After that I think it boils down to what each individual feels comfortable with. Personally, I wouldn't feel right stomping on another publishers trademark.

Second, while I feel it's correct to communicate with a publisher when seeking to publish their OGC, what if the publisher refuses? Legally, they don't have that right, but many publishers try to do this. If the second publisher goes ahead and uses (legally) the OGC material, who's being "unfriendly" and "unethical" - the first publisher, the second, or both?.

This has always been a strange point of the OGL. Many people like to check before using existing OGC which is just fine. If a publisher asks someone to not use existing OGC it's completely in its right but the asker can go ahead and do as he wishes -- if he's comfortable with going against the wishes of the publisher that rejected his request.

I agree that there's no simple answer to these questions. I also feel that any publisher or individual that constantly works against the industry should not be afforded the same respect and consideration as a publisher that has actively engaged in strengthening the community and industry.

I didn't start the poll because I thought it was an easy question or simple issue.

 

[Andre]

I didn't start the poll because I thought it was an easy question or simple issue.

Easy questions are boring...

 

[Pramas]

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?

Trust your gut feeling.

I think the OGL has made some people think that it's OK to mess with other people's lines, brands, and Trademarks. This is a never a good idea.

 

[wingsandsword]

I don't see a problem with MageCraft or SpaceCraft. As was said, people might even think you'd be ripping off Blizzard instead with their WarCraft/StarCraft games instead of SpyCraft, SomethingCraft isn't exactly a unique naming style. If I made a modern-day occult horror game called WitchCraft, would you think I was ripping off Spycraft's name?

How is this really any different than the Something & Somethingelse naming convention that many early RPG's had, copying the D&D alliteration and name pattern?

How is it really any different than generic store-brand colas with similar-sounding names and very similar packaging, but they are clearly not the same thing?

It is not the most friendly, neighborly thing in the world, but I wouldn't call it unethical, or even particularly rude (maybe just a little, but rude certainly isn't the same thing as unethical). I see it as an example of what can be right with the OGL, the ability to take somebody elses work, expand upon it, and everybody ends up winning in the end. Furthermore, you're pushing customers to buy Spycraft the same way the d20STL pushes customers to buy the PHB, so you're even potentially making business for them.

 

[jgbrowning]

If I made a modern-day occult horror game called WitchCraft, would you think I was ripping off Spycraft's name?

I don't think Blizzard would worry. However, Eden might.

http://www.edenstudios.net/witchcraft/

joe b.