D100-system charter

[peterb]

Most members of this board probably understands what is meant with the term “d100-system”, a system of rules designed to facilitate role-playing, which is class less, level less, has no arbitrary limits on what a character can do and which resolves in-game tasks by rolling a d100 under a threshold value.

I'm contemplating a few conversion projects in which material written for use with the d20-system are converted so that they may be used with the d100-system. This means that I'll have to use the open gaming license (OGL). That license forbids any kind of compatibility statements with existing products, product lines or trademarks, unless you have a separate license to do so. It then becomes quite interesting to sort out if d100 is a trademark, and if it is – who owns it?

Having searched the trademark databases of both the EU and the US I'm fairly certain that “d100” is not a registered trademark (for games in any case...). I have a very vague recollection of having seen a d100 logo on one of Chaosium's products but now I cannot verify that. Chaosium does not these days, as far as I can see, market BRP as anything else than “Chaosiums d100 system” or possibly “The Chaosium system”, which makes sense. There are quite a number of companies that also have or still does publish game systems that are similar to Chaosium's and it would therefore be very difficult to claim such a trademark and in the EU, due to our trademark laws, it's quite impossible. In the EU the mark “d100” (and d20 as a matter of fact) would be seen as generic descriptors of a certain type of game mechanics and also as the name of a specific type of dice. In both cases, using a dice designation as a trademark, would be “devoid of any distinctive character” because it “consist exclusively of signs or indications which have become customary in the current language or in the bona fide and established practices of the trade.” (First Council Directive of 21 December 1988 to Approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (89/104/EEC), art 3.1 b and d) It would therefore seem safe to use a “Compatible with the d100-system” and even using a d100 logo on any OGL publication. Which, from my perspective, is a good thing.

The community could in fact benefit from “marketing” a d100 logo of it's own. It's in our own interest, as consumers, that only products that really fit our, by practice, established definition of what a d100 game is, are allowed to label themselves as “d100 compatible”. The community cannot own such a trademark (since we are not one entity and we do not act in a business context) but we could establish a mark that would have a similar effect to a trademark. In the EU we have something called collective, guarantee and certification marks. These marks are used by groups of traders or by authorities to indicate to consumers (and other traders) a guarantee that a product has certain qualities, comes from a specific geographic area or is certified by the correct authorities. A consumer group, such ours could not register such a mark (we are not traders) but we could establish a standard and create a symbol for that standard and with time that symbol would acquire some of the characteristics of a trademark. A company who markets products as d100 compatible, when they are not, could then be reported to the authorities (protection of consumer authorities) and accused of misleading advertisement, which is a quite effective weapon. This could be done already at this point in time but if there's an established standard which the community follows and companies that markets the community follows then we have established a market practice.

I therefore propose that we create:

a) a d100 charter, a document that spells out the minimal characteristics that a role-playing game, labelling it self as “a d100-system” or “Compatible with the d100-system” must have.
b) a d100-system logo.
c) a d100-system logo license (we assume that the logo is copyright protected).

The purpose would be to establish a market standard and assign a symbol to that standard and allow, anyone, who is willing to follow the standard the right to use the logo free of charge.

Comments are most welcome...

/Peter Brink

[rust]

I appreciate and support your intentions, but I have serious doubts that your
idea really would work.

For example, we could hardly prevent the use (or misuse) of "our" logo by any
publishers, unless we would in some way become a legal entity, and would be
willing to file lawsuits against anyone using "our" logo without our permission.

Since there are (as far as I know) still no rules for European (= EU-wide) non-
profit organizations, we probably would have to establish legal entities in all
of the EU member states to be able to "protect" our logo in any meaningful
way.

And without protection the logo would not really be useful for customers, I
think.

In my opinion it would be easier to use something more personal, perhaps a
short line written by the forum administrator or thelike, instead of a logo.
To copy and use a logo is rather easy, to copy and use a personal opinion
under a certain person's name is illegal in any case and any legal system.

[peterb]

Originally Posted by rust

I appreciate and support your intentions, but I have serious doubts that your idea really would work.

For example, we could hardly prevent the use (or misuse) of "our" logo by any
publishers, unless we would in some way become a legal entity, and would be willing to file lawsuits against anyone using "our" logo without our permission.

Since there are (as far as I know) still no rules for European (= EU-wide) non-profit organizations, we probably would have to establish legal entities in all of the EU member states to be able to "protect" our logo in any meaningful way.

And without protection the logo would not really be useful for customers, I think.

In my opinion it would be easier to use something more personal, perhaps a short line written by the forum administrator or thelike, instead of a logo. To copy and use a logo is rather easy, to copy and use a personal opinion under a certain person's name is illegal in any case and any legal system.

Ah, but the idea is that we needn't do the dirtywork - we could leave that to the authorities. One of the tasks of the consumer protection agencies is to act against misleading commercial practices. A misleading actions is an action that deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer about, for example, the main characteristics of the product (see the EU directive concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices, art. 6.1 for more details).

What we would do would be to complain to the authorities that a publisher uses the logo in a misleading way, deceiving the consumers about the nature of his product, and then let the consumer protection agency do the work for us.

The purpose of the charter and the logo is to establish a proof of what is it that the consumer expects from a d100 compatible product.

Does this make sense?

/Peter

[rust]

In principle, it does of course make sense.

However, at least here in Germany the authorities would only react if a
German publisher would misuse the logo, and even then they would hard-
ly do more than send the publisher a letter to ask him to stop it. He could
safely ignore the letter for a year or two.
And the idea to complain as a German citizen to, for example, the Italian
authorities about something an Italian publisher has done ...

Unless you put a lawyer behind it, complaints of that kind usually do not
go very far.

[peterb]

Originally Posted by rust

In principle, it does of course make sense.

However, at least here in Germany the authorities would only react if a
German publisher would misuse the logo, and even then they would hard-
ly do more than send the publisher a letter to ask him to stop it. He could
safely ignore the letter for a year or two.
And the idea to complain as a German citizen to, for example, the Italian
authorities about something an Italian publisher has done ...

Unless you put a lawyer behind it, complaints of that kind usually do not
go very far.

Sad, but you are most probably right...

Anyway, I just made two prototypes for logos that we could at least recommend the community to use... and it appears as I see them side by side that they didn't turn out at the same size... Well, anyway, you get the idea.

[Jason Durall]

I should point out that Chaosium is actively seeking licensees for BRP at this time and (in my opinion) an official "BRP-compatible" sort of logo might be preferable to one solely focusing on d100 (as many games use d%, and not all in the same way).

I could imagine some confusion if someone bought a product saying "d100 compatible" with the intent of using it for a Rolemaster or Warhammer game.

[frogspawner]

... or MRQ.

[AikiGhost]

Ive had a system called d100 up on my personal website for at least 6 years, so I hereby claim ownership

d100 System

[peterb]

Originally Posted by AikiGhost

Ive had a system called d100 up on my personal website for at least 6 years, so I hereby claim ownership

No offence intended but... Having written (and published) a publication called "d100" does not by itself create a trademark. It really doesn't. Sorry.


/Peter

[AikiGhost]

Originally Posted by peterb

No offence intended but... Having written (and published) a publication called "d100" does not by itself create a trademark. It really doesn't. Sorry.


/Peter

Doesn't your browser render smileys?