Would this be as inappropriate as I think?

[PJ-Mason]

I would say it depends. As long as the company in question (whoever it might be, not specifically AEG) is playing by the same "goodwill" rules then i say no, its not cool to sponge off their name/trade dress, etc.

But if its the kind of company that is control happy or is trying to protect their OGC or restrict its use (which flies in the flace of the ogl), or they are just plain jerks, then i say...yes, maybe.
Although if it is a company of the latter type, i probably wouldn't want to use their stuff anyway.

I'd definitely see what the company in question felt about it before i made my decision. They would probably love someone with your rep in the industry to do work with their material, so you might even get some leniency with their trademarks.

 

[Sledge]

I'm really amused that someone would refer to calling a product Arcana Expanded as being inappropriate, when the original Arcana Unearthed was deliberately playing off a previous books title. A title which has been reused again for the current edition.
In short, the "bigger" publishers would never care who they were impolite too, as long as no one is impolite to them. Only the little ones bother with politeness to each other. But really talk to AEG, I doubt they would complain.

 

[AscentStudios]

Phil,

First, thanks for the kudos, and for your consideration We always appreciate that.

I would absolutely recommend going to Patrick Kapera first - he's the man with the plan, and it'd be downright neighborly of you to inform him of your intentions about our baby. Kinda like an engagement, in a way I'm sure he can give you some feedback on how AEG/he would feel about the ____Craft naming scheme, and how it fits with his own plans for the line.

Morgenstern is correct that PbS is alive - just not currently overutilized. I would expect this to change with 2.0, however. 'Spycraft Family' is part of the PbS group, just at a different level. There are a grip of us Family members out here, working quietly away, so I can say for certain the Powered by Spycraft will be even bigger this time around.

I look forward to what Ronin Arts may have in store!

 

[philreed]

I'm really amused that someone would refer to calling a product Arcana Expanded as being inappropriate, when the original Arcana Unearthed was deliberately playing off a previous books title. A title which has been reused again for the current edition.

Please note that the back cover of Arcana Unearthed reads:

Unearthed Arcana is a trademark of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc. Arcana Unearthed is used with permission of Wizards, all all rights are reserved.

So the Arcana Unearthed title wasn't just drug out without any thought to trademark confusion. Monte Cook specifically went and acquired permission to use the Arcana Unearthed title.

 

[philreed]

Special thanks to the Spycraft 2.0 team for wading into the thread and extra special thanks for their advice and words of encouragement!

 

[BSF]

I'm really amused that someone would refer to calling a product Arcana Expanded as being inappropriate, when the original Arcana Unearthed was deliberately playing off a previous books title. A title which has been reused again for the current edition.
In short, the "bigger" publishers would never care who they were impolite too, as long as no one is impolite to them. Only the little ones bother with politeness to each other. But really talk to AEG, I doubt they would complain.

Except, of course, that early on in the project Monte Cook contacted WotC and asked if he could use the Unearthed Arcana name. As I recall, they initially said yes, then changed their mind. Since he had already been touting Unearthed Arcana as a title, he then asked if he could use Arcana Unearthed and was given the green light on that.

At least, that is my understanding of how that process went. Perhaps Monte will stop by and clarify if I am wrong?

 

[BSF]

Over the years there have been several 'issues' that have cropped up of 'questionable' use.

Does anybody remember the company that had a cover format very similar to the Core Rulebooks? In addition, they were even being marketed as 'the other core rulebooks' or something similar. I don't want to name names because it isn't important.

Anyway, WotC felt the similarities were too similar and that there was confusion between the products. Looking at them side by side in a store, I can see where the concern is legitimate.

So if a [blank]craft came out, I am not sure it would be a clear example of riding the coattails of another publisher. However, if that book also used font and layout that were very similar I could see there being legitimate concern.

As a consumer, I very much appreciate the RPG market trying to maintain friendly competitin rather than bitter aggression toward each other.

What impact does friendly competion have on me? Well given the number of freelancers that work for multiple companies I think there is a lot of relevance to me. Phil is a good example I think. Since he started the thread, I will abuse him somewhat.

Phil has worked with Steve Jackson games, I am pretty suer he has done some freelancing on Star Wars Mini battles, he has worked with Mystic Eye Games, Green Ronin, Bad Axe Games, etc. I know he has done some of this work via Ronin Arts, but there are freelance author credits in there as well. Ronin arts also distributes projects from other freelancers that have worked with different companies. Obviously it is in Phil's interests not to upset these companies. But it is also in my interests. I want to see the niche products that a larger company might not want to take the risk on.

With healthy, friendly working relationships, the consumers get to see the efforts of some authors across multiple companies. This is important because this market is small enough that it might not be possible for a company to keep an author onboard full time. They can freelance it out for project X or Y.

Once the relationships shift to aggressive and decidely unfriendly, you start entering turf battles. Author A can't work for Company W without risking the wrath of Company Z. But Company Z doesn't have a project for Author A right now, so Author A can't afford to eat. Of course, in a few months, Company W won't have a project either and Author A won't be eating at that time because Company Z is in a tizzy. So Author A decides to go back to being Worker Bee 2478 for non-gaming Corporation J and now we don't see any new products being written.

These issues can, of course, crop up right now anyway. Maybe they do. But there are a lot of freelancers that have moved between projects and companies.

Now if a company refuses to let another company use material, they have no legal recourse. Assuming it is OGC that is being used. But it would still be best to avoid anything that might be construed as infringing on another company's trademarks or IP. Why would it need to be called [blank]craft? Just come up with a new name and a clear format.

 

[Conaill]

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.

IANAL, but from what I do know of trademark law, I don't think this is even *legal*!

Just try starting up a fastfood restaurant and calling it "McFood". When you trademark a term, you don't just protect that exact phrase, you also protect yourself from people using a similar phrase which is clearely intended to refer to your own trademark. Especially if the use of that similar phrase could cause enough confusion in the customer to result in lost sales for the trademarked line (e.g. if someone thinks "SpaceCraft" is an official Spycraft supplement).

So either the title would have to be sufficiently subtle that people don't really tend to make the connection - and then it's kinda besides the point - or if it does clearly refer to SpyCraft, it opens you up to a trademark infringement lawsuit. And don't forget that the SpyCraft guys would pretty much have to pursue this, if they want to maintain their trademark!

"SpaceCraft" by itself may very well be subtle enough not to matter. But with the SpyCraft font and/or with a "for use with statement" added to it, it would definitely cross the line.

 

[philreed]

Phil has worked with Steve Jackson games, I am pretty suer he has done some freelancing on Star Wars Mini battles, he has worked with Mystic Eye Games, Green Ronin, Bad Axe Games, etc. I know he has done some of this work via Ronin Arts, but there are freelance author credits in there as well. Ronin arts also distributes projects from other freelancers that have worked with different companies. Obviously it is in Phil's interests not to upset these companies. But it is also in my interests. I want to see the niche products that a larger company might not want to take the risk on.

The Star Wars minis work was a scenario for Scrye -- so it's not official.

But yeah, since I still accept the occasional freelance job I try to maintain a good relationship with several companies. To be clear, though, even if I wasn't freelancing I'd still want to maintain good relationships with as many companies as possible -- it's good for cross-marketing purposes and it's just the right thing to do.

After all, most publishers are in this for fun and money. While there are a few aggresive publishers willing to do anything to harm their competition most of them actively seek ways to -- if not work together -- co-exist peacefully.

 

[Sledge]

My point wasn't about legalities. Monte Cook is a professional, so I'm sure he tries to stay legal. My point was that Malhavoc press and other big names don't ask if something is inappropriate, they find out if it valuable, and if so do what it takes to use it.
This can be as little as running it by the similar parties to preclude legal issues, or as complex as licensing. As is the case for AU, everyone knew what it referenced. It wasn't the same as the old UA but had instant brand recognition. Appropriateness was a job for the legal department to find out.