Mark, you missed what I was trying to say. Let me try to clarify.
I'm not saying the logo should say in text "hey, we're compatible with the
d20 system!" I'm saying the logo you presented fails because VISUALLY it
doesn't have anything that will flip a switch in the customer's mind for
them to draw a connection to d20/OGL material on their own. I'm also not
disputing that it conforms to section 7. What I'm saying is that it simply
doesn't meet the requirements of a replacement branding option because
customers simply can't draw any visual conclusions from that logo as to what
it is meant to entail.
For example, Eden has used a logo that is a d20 with the word "Modern" under
it on their Revised AFMBE corebook. Such a logo has sufficient elements to
clue in a customer that the product is compatible with d20 modern and yet
the logo is not in violation of section 7. Another good example is the
recognizable and simple OGL logo Mongoose puts on its OGL corebook line and
on its Conan books. Your logo has no such visual connection and thus will
fail as a marketing and branding tool as a d20/OGL replacement logo unless
you are able to put sufficient marketing strength behind it, such as by
getting some big names already associated with d20/OGL to also use it and
there by create a connection on the merit of their coat tails. If not, the
customer simply doesn't have any clue what it is meant to indicate and your
logo just ends up being a graphic element the average customer can't figure
out the purpose for.
Regards,
Steven Trustrum
President For Life (or until the money runs out)
Misfit Studios
http://www.misfit-studios.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
416-857-2433
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark
Clover
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 9:14 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Ogf-l] Re: OGL Logos?
"As I see it, the major problem with that logo is there's nothing to
tie such products to d20 in the consumer's mind, which is by far the
first thing such a logo would need to do."
The license is quite explicit about claiming compatibility without a
separate permission. No third party logo or OGL logo can claim
compatibility to D&D, the d20 license, or anything without a separate
agreement.
From the OGL, section seven -
"7. Use of Product Identity: (. . .) You agree not to indicate
compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered
Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content
except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with
the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark."
There seems to be no doubt on that point but people always bring it up
when an alternative to the d20 license is proffered. Bottom line is
always that nothing can replace the d20 license and logo.
This Third Party Publisher designation and logo conforms to the OGL
and is non-restictive in application. One of the reasons that the d20
license and logo cannot be replaced is because no one except WotC is
in the position to make another logo carry the same clout. But
another reason is that whatever else is used in conjunction with the
OGL must follow the OGL. No claims of compatibility are allowed. No
other restrictions can be put on the OGC within the prduct, either,
which is why I believe the designation and logo must themselves by OGC
and not tied to a specific publisher. Notice I make no claim of
copyright on the logo or designation? While it was made by me and was
therefore mine to release as OGC, there is nothing in the license that
requires me to make further claim upon it after release. Plus, there
are plenty enough people who would prefer an OGL designation and logo
that is not burdened by the baggage of other people's hopes, dreams,
and desires, lest they not be concurrent with their own. The Third
Party Publisher designation and logo is baggage-free.
Anyway, the same old replies will now follow to the effect that "it
doesn't mean anything" (which I have already explained why it cannot,
at least at the outset, other than to indicate that the OGL is in
use). And the other I often have heard in the past is "it doesn't
require anything or have any rules to govern it's use" which as I
explained is exactly something it can't have (and which is, indeed,
one of its strengths). But most of these arguments in the past have
come from folks who have invested a great deal of time in their own
personal crusades for an "alt-d20 license" to no real appreciable
effect. I'm sure they'll be along soon to explain why a logo must
have this and do that but they won't see why the logos they have
really don't have this or do that since they have never gained any
real widespread acceptance because of the very baggage they burden
them with.
Have at it, again.
As always,
Mark Clover
www.CreativeMountainGames.com
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
