Would this be as inappropriate as I think?

[Wystan]

Or i understand the difference you think it is, don't see it as the difference you want everyone to see it as, and that it apparently displeases you. Bluntly speaking, of course.

PJ-Mason, so you want to be able to say that you created an item and it is 100% compatible with XXXXXXX, however you do not want to offer any notice that the creators of XXXXXXX did not like the item and that they asked you not to associate it with them....I seem to remember a book being changed from D20 to OGL for just such an issue as this, had something to do with Perver...Erotic Fantasy or somesuch.

You are coming off as a jerk and annoying the publishers of the products that you want to create subject matter for. You would be best served by reading more of the OGL and then looking into why Branding Exists.

Would you walk into a Burger King and ask for a Big Mac? Or Wendy's and ask for a Whopper? No, why....Because the branding. They are both just burgers, but they have a niche because of branding. Spycraft is AEG's baby and they DO NOT want crap to have a Powered by Spycraft logo on it. Associating with CRAP would sink the ship. Same with GR and any other Publisher.

So go read more and post less.

(Note, NO SMILIES, I am not being cute, nice or even friendly....)

 

[PJ-Mason]

Wow. Despite what you think, this isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. Branding is entirely a separate concept. It's really obvious that you don't understand what that concept entails, or that it has ZERO IMPACT on the use of Open Content.

"The difference you want everyone to see it as"....are you seriously suggesting that publishers who understand the concept are somehow trying to pull something over on people? That's what it sounds like you're saying with this....

I understand that you are "branding" a set of rules that are already available to everybody and that by "branding" them people are either going to "profit" by playing things your way, or suffer the scarlet letter treatment of not having your particular brand stamped on them instead. Hmm...now that was dramatic wasn't it?

I don't like it as a business practice and thinks it wrong on matter how many do it as a matter of fact and i think it has even more impact in this situation. I thinks it wrong just like i know downloading pdfs for free (when they aren't supposed to be) is wrong, regardless of how many nifty legal or business terms it gets painted onto it.

Regardless, the last half of this thread is turning into a "Am too", "Am not" circle bleep.
So i'll just bow out of it.

To directly answer the original thread's question for my last post. No. I no longer think its wrong to sidestep "brands". As long as your're legal about it, thats all that is apprarently important. Its just a business decision after all. Thats clear to me now.

 

[PJ-Mason]

Alright. so i lied about my last post! This'll be my last one. Promise.

Um, I have no problem with it because they aren't restricting the OGC at all. They are restricting their trademark. You have no right to use the trademark to begin with. So you aren't losing anything. In order to gain the trademark, you have to jump through a hoop. Don't like the hoop, don't use the trademark. This is not restricting the OGC in any way. It is merely a choice you must make.

I understand that. I really do. Like i said, i'm not standing outside anyone's house with a pitchfork and rope? I can answer the thread and say, "yeah go ahead an do this, because i don't think the trademark is cool in the first place and you shouldn't make people jump through hoops". It took me a few posts to get to that opinion, but i thought thats what these threads are about. I can answer the thread and say what i think about a practice can't I? Thats all i'm doing. I'm not getting angry and am certaintly not trying to be flame-like, while still saying what i think.

 

[GMSkarka]

The mind boggles.


I have no words.

 

[Pramas]

I understand that you are "branding" a set of rules that are already available to everybody and that by "branding" them people are either going to "profit" by playing things your way, or suffer the scarlet letter treatment of not having your particular brand stamped on them instead. Hmm...now that was dramatic wasn't it?

Yes, and also COMPLETELY WRONG. You seem to be under the impression that the True20 rules are just the d20 rules with a different logo. That is not the case. If that's what we were trying to do, no one would give a damn whether we had created a new logo or not. They'd just laugh and use the d20 logo and we wouldn't be having this conversation. True20, however, is a unique ruleset and that's why it has its own brand. Now it did use the OGL and build on the basics of the d20 System but the result of that is something quite different than vanilla d20 (just like Mutants & Masterminds was before it). And that's the whole point. We created something new and something that is really striking a chord with a lot of gamers. If the True20 brand has value, it's because of our hard work and you can be sure that we're going to try to benefit from our own creation. It is frankly hard to believe that I have defend our right to do what we want with our own game.

 

[Insight]

Yes, and also COMPLETELY WRONG. You seem to be under the impression that the True20 rules are just the d20 rules with a different logo. That is not the case. If that's what we were trying to do, no one would give a damn whether we had created a new logo or not. They'd just laugh and use the d20 logo and we wouldn't be having this conversation. True20, however, is a unique ruleset and that's why it has its own brand. Now it did use the OGL and build on the basics of the d20 System but the result of that is something quite different than vanilla d20 (just like Mutants & Masterminds was before it). And that's the whole point. We created something new and something that is really striking a chord with a lot of gamers. If the True20 brand has value, it's because of our hard work and you can be sure that we're going to try to benefit from our own creation. It is frankly hard to believe that I have defend our right to do what we want with our own game.

Yeah, and I wish you didn't have to. This entire argument could have been avoided had the only person with a complaint (PJ-Mason) done any homework at all on the situation. A brand/logo/trademark is Intellectual Property. It is not Public Domain. I recommend that anyone interested in learning more about these concepts use Google or some similar search engine to research what these are and why they exist.

Consider the OGL to be roughly equivalent to Public Domain, with the caveat that you must include a legal statement giving credit to those works from whom you have derived material. A trademark is a completely different entity, which is equivalent to the creator's Intellectual Property. If you wish to use someone else's Intellectual Property, you must gain permission. This is a legal area, and may be going well beyond the scope of this thread.

Without understanding these basic legal concepts, no additional ground can be gained in this discussion. Just be aware that no one is keeping you from using anything to which you are entitled. If you don't want to use the True20 logo, then don't go through the steps to gain permission. Release your compatible product under the OGL and hope for the best. I believe that having the True20 logo on your product will boost sales tremendously, and I'm sure that I'm not alone in that belief.

 

[Andre]

What bothers me about the True 20 situation is that if you produce (say) some True 20 monsters you really need to be able to say that your book is no use without the True 20 rules. Otherwise, you risk conning your customers.

This is the issue I still haven't seen a good answer to (maybe I've just missed it - we got a bit derailed there for a while ). Trademarks, brands, "look and feel" are clearly something that a publisher should protect. But if I create material compatible with a ruleset based on OGC, material that requires use of that ruleset, I *have* to communicate that fact to my potential customers, or risk defrauding them.

I'll use True20 as an example, since it's been mentioned so often in this thread. If I produce a supplement specifically for those rules, I better say the words "True20 ruleset required". But even though everything in my theoretical supplement is legal per the OGC, those words aren't. The argument seems to be that using those words is up to the True20 publisher. Which, in effect, blocks the proper use of OGC material. (I say proper use, since there are so many legal ways to use OGC improperly)

So what happens? If a publisher invests the time, money, and effort in creating a new ruleset using OGC, should the publisher be able to stop others from producing OGC material based on their ruleset, simply by not allowing the words "xxx ruleset required"? If so, does this encourage publishers to produce such material and create verbal contortions to say "True20" without really saying it?

And, if the answers are yes, does the consumer really benefit from this state of affairs?

 

[GMSkarka]

This is the issue I still haven't seen a good answer to

The "good answer" that you're looking for is the simple one that I still can't believe people can't seem to grasp:

If you're producing something SPECIFICALLY FOR True20 (in the example you quoted, producing True20 monsters)....instead of something for the wider D20 market, then you should absolutely expect to pay a license fee to say so. What you're doing is NOT simply using OGC. By your own admission, it is specifically for use with True20.

Hence, the license.


Think of it like this: If you produced something for the specific use with AEG's STARGATE game, for example, you'd have to have a license to do so, even if you were basing what you were writing off OGC. The fact that you're producing it specifically for a brand requires a license. It's that simple.

 

[Andre]

If you're producing something SPECIFICALLY FOR True20 (in the example you quoted, producing True20 monsters)....instead of something for the wider D20 market, then you should absolutely expect to pay a license fee to say so. What you're doing is NOT simply using OGC. By your own admission, it is specifically for use with True20.

Hence, the license.

Think of it like this: If you produced something for the specific use with AEG's STARGATE game, for example, you'd have to have a license to do so, even if you were basing what you were writing off OGC. The fact that you're producing it specifically for a brand requires a license. It's that simple.

Sorry if I'm a bit dense, but if the mechanics in True20 are based on the SRD, aren't they considered OGC, even if different from the SRD? If so, then producing material to use those mechanics would be simply using OGC. If not...well, maybe that's where I'm confused.

Or another example: Iron Heroes has created a number of new classes. I may be wrong, but I believe the product is published under the OGL. Are the mechanics of those classes OGC? And if they are, couldn't someone produce an adventure referencing those rules, but not the PI, without requiring a license?

 

[philreed]

Sorry if I'm a bit dense, but if the mechanics in True20 are based on the SRD, aren't they considered OGC, even if different from the SRD? If so, then producing material to use those mechanics would be simply using OGC. If not...well, maybe that's where I'm confused.

Check the products for specific OGC designation but that's not what the discussion is about.

Okay, let's try to make this clear. This discussion is about trademarks. This particular thread was started because someone suggested using MageCraft or SpaceCraft as titles of products that would be built from the OGC in Spycraft. There's never been any doubt as to the legality of using OGC. The question deals with how far is too far when creating a title that's intended to imply a connection with an existing trademark.

I don't see why this is so difficult to understand. (But then, if I didn't deal with stuff like this every day for years I may be just as confused as several others are.)