> Dan Carreker
>
> 1) a game mentions, inadvertantly, the XYZ. XYZ
> Corp which makes a non-gaming product claims it
> violates the copyright. They admit it falls under
> fair usage, but claims the liscense forbids its use
> and holds the publisher to a higher standard. They
> want a really bad thing done to the publisher.
Copyright is totally different than a Trademark. Things that cannot be
trademarked can be copyrighted, and things that cannot be copyrighted can be
trademarked. It is wise not to confuse the two.
> 2) Since trademarks are a bit different than
> copyrights and (as far as I know) have a broader
> interpitation. So who decides when a trademark was
> violated?
Ultimately the courts do, but each mark owner makes a judgment call when the
mark is used without permission as to whether or not they should pursue the
alleged infringement. Most times it never gets to court (it is either
ignored or settled out of court).
The biggest violation of a Trademark (and the reason they were created) is
so companies would be able to differentiate themselves from the knock-offs.
That means you can't confuse consumers into thinking your product is an
official 'Dungeons & Dragons' product. In certain circumstances a company
can use a mark they don't own for advertising purposes, such as saying a
product works as well or better than another product, or by saying a product
'replaces' another product (it's tricky but it can be done). Mostly this is
an advertising & marketing issue, and that's how I think it should be
treated in the OGL. It doesn't do anyone any good if we encourage a market
of knock-offs.
Since the d20 mark is WotC property, it is perfectly reasonable for them to
insist on 'no trademarks' in a d20 work. The trademarks most folks would
like to use in conjunction with d20 would also be WotC trademarks, and this
is clearly not in WotC's best interest.
-Brad
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
