Pathfinder Trademark License?

[Prime Evil]

Will Paizo be producing some kind of Pathfinder trademark license similar to the d20 System Trademark License or Green Ronin's M&M Superlink License that will allow 3rd party publishers to indicate compatibility with the Pathfinder RPG?

I realize that the Pathfinder RPG is being released under the OGL, but section 7 of the OGL explicitly prohibits you from indicating that compatibility with other people's trademarks:

OGL wrote:

You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that 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.

Personally, I'd love to see the growth of a vibrant developer community around Pathfinder.

I'm thinking of working on a fan website for my homebrew campaign setting that will go live when the Pathfinder RPG is released. However, I wonder how to indicate that people need the Pathfinder RPG to use the material that I develop.

[yellowdingo]

They might have trouble with that...I saw a film about a Viking child raised by Native Americans called Pathfinder (Logo Textfont looked similar).

[The Bibliophile]

OGL wrote:

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.

I'll start off with the obligatory I'm not a lawyer, though in my experience most lawyers don't know jack about trademarks either unless they've actually dealt with them professionally which very few actually do. I want to say that I've read a comment from someone at Paizo (Erik?) saying that they were looking a way to do exactly this, provide a way for people to list thier products as PRPG compatible, but as I can't remember where I read that take it with a grain of salt.

I read the sentence above from the OGL as saying that you simply can't have a trademark or registered trademark on a product with open content (which is not a trademark though folks have made their own OGL logos) without an agreement. Presumably the D20 license itself would be an example of a trademark agreement that qualifies since its compatible.

[Prime Evil]

The Bibliophile wrote:

I want to say that I've read a comment from someone at Paizo (Erik?) saying that they were looking a way to do exactly this, provide a way for people to list thier products as PRPG compatible, but as I can't remember where I read that take it with a grain of salt.

This is encouraging news. I'd love to see companies like Green Ronin release stuff that is compatible with Pathfinder. I'd also love to see some interesting fan content emerge.

The Bibliophile wrote:

I read the sentence above from the OGL as saying that you simply can't have a trademark or registered trademark on a product with open content (which is not a trademark though folks have made their own OGL logos) without an agreement. Presumably the D20 license itself would be an example of a trademark agreement that qualifies since its compatible.

Yep...this is why the OGL and trademark license that allows you to place the d20 logo on your products are separate. WoTC have indicated that the d20 license will end in June - which ends the ability of publishers to market products as d20 compatible - but they can't revoke the license that allows you to use OGL content from the v3.5 System Reference Document.

Similarly, you can use OGL from the Pathfinder RPG without a license, but you can't actually say that your product is designed to be used with Pathfinder without a separate license from Paizo.

[Lisa Stevens]

Hey y'all:

There will most definetly be a way for 3PP to identify products as compatible with the PRPG. We just don't have everything nailed down yet (the RPG doesn't come out until next summer, so we figured we had at least a little bit of time).

-Lisa

[Ed Zoller 52]

I have clicked through numerous boards and there is mention to Paizo not being allowed to write for 4th edition. Is this true? Who is in and who is out? If necromancer games writes for 4th, can they write for pathfinder rpg? Also did alpha 2 get released. Loved Alpha 1.

[SirUrza]

Ed, based on recent comments by WOTC, it's been inferred that the GSL specifically does not allowed a company to continue to publish products using the OGL. If this is indeed correct, companies that want to do 4E products will have to stop making OGL (3E) products all together.

Another things we do not know is if a company does go 4E GSL, how long if ever after their GSL product line ends before they can go back to using the OGL.

[aboyd]

Couldn't a company sign the WotC agreement ("I pledge to abandon 3.5") and then build games or modules for Pathfinder? Doesn't Pathfinder allow pubishers to bypass the restrictions? I mean, technically Pathfinder isn't 3.5, is it? It's compatible, of course, but isn't Paizo rewriting EVERYTHING? Doesn't that effectively mean it's all theirs and no longer controlled by OGL?

I believe that copyright allows someone to copyright the expression of a system but not the system itself. So the system of rolling dice and spell levels and movement and such is not actually copyright-able. Instead, it's the publisher's expression of it ("Roll the d20 to see if you hit", along with the very creative spell descriptions and such). If that's true, then rewriting the whole thing and using your own words for everything should mean that it's really yours. So Paizo would be an escape clause for anyone who signed a sucky WotC contract.

[Pneumonica]

aboyd wrote:

Couldn't a company sign the WotC agreement ("I pledge to abandon 3.5") and then build games or modules for Pathfinder? Doesn't Pathfinder allow pubishers to bypass the restrictions? I mean, technically Pathfinder isn't 3.5, is it? It's compatible, of course, but isn't Paizo rewriting EVERYTHING? Doesn't that effectively mean it's all theirs and no longer controlled by OGL?

I believe that copyright allows someone to copyright the expression of a system but not the system itself. So the system of rolling dice and spell levels and movement and such is not actually copyright-able. Instead, it's the publisher's expression of it ("Roll the d20 to see if you hit", along with the very creative spell descriptions and such). If that's true, then rewriting the whole thing and using your own words for everything should mean that it's really yours. So Paizo would be an escape clause for anyone who signed a sucky WotC contract.

Unfortunately we don't have the license verbiage on hand to see how loopholed it is. It might specifically demand that the lincensee not use the OGL at all in any of its products. If this is the case, then it would be impossible to use any OGC, since to do so would require use of the OGL.

[SirUrza]

aboyd wrote:

Couldn't a company sign the WotC agreement ("I pledge to abandon 3.5") and then build games or modules for Pathfinder?

As I understand it no, here's why.

Pathfinder derives from the System Reference Document. The SRD is the D&D rules that the Open Gaming License allows other companies to use (this is why Pathfinder has it's own XP tables, the D&D XP table isn't part of the SRD.)

As long as the game is based off the SRD (D&D 3.5) it's an OGL product. The moment they stop putting the license in the back and the logo on the cover, they violate that license.

Thus, anything based off Pathfinder is still using the OGL.

[aboyd]

Pneumonica wrote:

If this is the case, then it would be impossible to use any OGC, since to do so would require use of the OGL.

No, that's the point I was trying to make. You don't have to sign the OGL to use OGC. US copyright law, at least, disallows the copyright of game mechanics. Basically all you can copyright is your flowery prose describing things. Many companies went with the OGL anyway, because it's a real safe way to publish "blessed and sanctioned" material. However, there are a few d20 publishers who NEVER signed the OGL and continue to publish unabated. Why? Because you don't actually need to abide by the OGL to do OGL-compatible stuff.

In fact, there is one publisher that has a "Why We Never Do OGL But Still Publish D20 Games" article up on their Web site. I cannot find the publisher, though. Does anyone know which publisher has that text online?

Anyway, so my thinking was that if Pathfinder RPG is a complete rewrite of the rules (and by that I do not mean changing the way things work, but just rewriting new descriptions for everything), then it ought to no longer be OGL even though it is compatible.

[Pneumonica]

aboyd wrote:

No, that's the point I was trying to make. You don't have to sign the OGL to use OGC. US copyright law, at least, disallows the copyright of game mechanics. Basically all you can copyright is your flowery prose describing things. Many companies went with the OGL anyway, because it's a real safe way to publish "blessed and sanctioned" material. However, there are a few d20 publishers who NEVER signed the OGL and continue to publish unabated. Why? Because you don't actually need to abide by the OGL to do OGL-compatible stuff.

In fact, there is one publisher that has a "Why We Never Do OGL But Still Publish D20 Games" article up on their Web site. I cannot find the publisher, though. Does anyone know which publisher has that text online?

Anyway, so my thinking was that if Pathfinder RPG is a complete rewrite of the rules (and by that I do not mean changing the way things work, but just rewriting new descriptions for everything), then it ought to no longer be OGL even though it is compatible.

Mistaken. Pathfinder uses Clerics, Druids, class abilities, domains, etc. Collectively it is materially linked to D&D as a property in ways more clearly defined than "roll a d20 and add a number to it". When other publishers attempted to make a "compatible product" with AD&D, they had to make a large number of material changes to their products to distinguish them (and they still got sued, and most of those lost the suits or settled out of court in favor of letting TSR have its own way). If you don't make it materially different, then WotC will argue "property dilution", which they can argue even if they are no longer publishing, and they will make it a class action suit on the behalf of all those legally using the OGL, and because they are the legal owners of the OGL they can take such an action.

In other words, they have all the cards in their favor if you want to lock legal horns with them. Even if you have more money and time than they do, you have everything stacked against you. I'm not saying you can't win - you certainly can. I am saying it'll cost you more than it could ever possibly be worth, even in terms of personal satisfaction.

[aboyd]

Hmm. I found it. Technomancer Press. From that page:

Technomancer Press wrote:

By not signing the OGL, we are not bound to WotC's restrictions. *We contend that the rights they are "granting" are rights we already have anyway, without needing their permission.

So they just publish d20 & OGL stuff even though they've never agreed to the OGL rules. And they're not stopped!

I also found a US government page on game copyrights. It contains this quote:

US Copyright Office wrote:

Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.

Therefore, Paizo could -- without EVER agreeing to the OGL -- legally create Pathfinder RPG as a rewritten version of D&D 3.5. They may not want to, because WotC would likely refuse to work with them ever again. But they could. And if they did, and if it took off, then basically they become the new D&D, and everyone will refer to Pathfinder rules, and it won't be at all under the OGL. Paizo could then release it with whatever license THEY wanted (maybe OGL, maybe something else).

[Pneumonica]

aboyd wrote:

US Copyright Office wrote:

Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.

Therefore, Paizo could -- without EVER agreeing to the OGL -- legally create Pathfinder RPG as a rewritten version of D&D 3.5. They may not want to, because WotC would likely refuse to work with them ever again. But they could. And if they did, and if it took off, then basically they become the new D&D, and everyone will refer to Pathfinder rules, and it won't be at all under the OGL.

Important emphasis on "similar". If WotC wants to argue that they're using "the same principles" (which, by copyright law, includes principles only "nominally or superficially different"), then Paizo will have a hell of a time countering.

[SirUrza]

aboyd wrote:

Therefore, Paizo could -- without EVER agreeing to the OGL -- legally create Pathfinder RPG as a rewritten version of D&D 3.5. They may not want to, because WotC would likely refuse to work with them ever again. But they could. And if they did, and if it took off, then basically they become the new D&D, and everyone will refer to Pathfinder rules, and it won't be at all under the OGL.

Who cares about Technomancer Press? Certainly not Wizards.

Personally their little statement says to me, "We're renegades and bucking big brother. Buy our stuff because we're Pirates!"

However if Paizo were to try this I'm sure Paizo would end up in court and I'm sure Hasbro has a lot more money to waste on lengthy legal proceedings then Paizo does. Whether Paizo wins or loses in court, their bank account still suffers.

[SirUrza]

Pneumonica wrote:

Important emphasis on "similar". If WotC wants to argue that they're using "the same principles" (which, by copyright law, includes principles only "nominally or superficially different"), then Paizo will have a hell of a time countering.

Especially when version 1.0, revision 1.1, and likely revision 2.0 all state their mission goals of continuing the 3.5 line and improving it on page 2. :P

[Prime Evil]

Lisa Stevens wrote:

Hey y'all:

There will most definetly be a way for 3PP to identify products as compatible with the PRPG. We just don't have everything nailed down yet (the RPG doesn't come out until next summer, so we figured we had at least a little bit of time).

-Lisa

Hi Lisa,

This is wonderful news. I look forward to hearing more when the time is right.

[Pneumonica]

Prime Evil wrote:

Lisa Stevens wrote:

Hey y'all:

There will most definetly be a way for 3PP to identify products as compatible with the PRPG. We just don't have everything nailed down yet (the RPG doesn't come out until next summer, so we figured we had at least a little bit of time).

-Lisa

Hi Lisa,

This is wonderful news. I look forward to hearing more when the time is right.

On this note, I am glad. Even if Paizo doesn't go the way I'd like, I'm happy to see 3.5 continue to be supported, despite the WotCies attempts to unring the bell.

[Fat Dragon Games]

Lisa Stevens wrote:

Hey y'all:

There will most definetly be a way for 3PP to identify products as compatible with the PRPG. We just don't have everything nailed down yet (the RPG doesn't come out until next summer, so we figured we had at least a little bit of time).

-Lisa

Thanks Lisa, I know we will definitely be supporting Pathfinder next year.

[Ken Marable]

Lisa Stevens wrote:

(the RPG doesn't come out until next summer, so we figured we had at least a little bit of time).

-Lisa

Careful, WotC said that about licensing 4e. ;) (Sorry, just couldn't help it.)