Publishing T&T without "that company"

[lostheretic]

I don't agree that we should become a loose confederation of projects. Tunnels and Trolls will die with the current generation of gamers unless there is an entity pushing it forward.

I think Tunnels and Trolls still has potential - it's the only game I know that still supports solitaire adventures. With enough love and enough cooperation it can grow again - it doesn't have to be a lost game.

We all have our opinions about "that company" at the moment, but I think we can agree that a single company producing regular adventures was doing wonders for the Tunnels and Trolls hobby. The real kicker is that working with DrivethruRPG, which uncovered the copyright infringement, was one of the best business decisions for "that company". People were looking at the products, it is a high traffic site.

If the community of Tunnels and Trolls splinters, with scattered groups releasing products of varying quality, the game will fade away. We don't have the name brand support OD&D does. We don't have the numbers other games do. Hell, we hardly even have the game's owner on our side.

Live together, die alone. That's my stance.

[koraq]

I'm not tied to the idea of Lulu. The good thing is that they can produce hardcopy. Their shipping costs is mostly a problem for doing hardcovers, isn't it? Those are just insane.

Actually producing a physical item is a step harder than just making a pdf available. Sure, you could always use a local copy shop or similar solution. As far as I know (I haven't been living in this country in a few years...) it's not very feasible for me.

Anyone who know of a POD alternative, please let me know. I know of Lulu, and that's it.

[jongjungbu]

I know of Lulu and that's it, too. It's a little pricey but I guess thats what you get for POD type service. At any rate, the talk of late has shown that people really love/want PDFs. So first and foremost I like to pursue that avenue--an easy one.

[hrrrothgarrr]

If people like PDF maybe that is the format we should try first. I know I can get thigs printed and bound at my local copyshop if I want, and I belive DrivethruRPG etc offer the option of having your order printed for you.

A single brand source would be good, but is less essenial than having stuff available where people can see it. DTRPG, RPGnow etc do offer high visibility.

[khaydhaik]

CreateSpace (www.createspace.com/) is good for softcover POD books. Their prices for softcover POD are hard to beat. And you can automatically have your products up for sale on Amazon.com without any extra fees.

Lightning Source (lightningsource.com/) is another POD publisher which I've looked at doing business with, but have not yet tried. They ask that all PDF files submitted to them for printing be of the PDF/X-1a:2001 format, and produced by Adobe Acrobat Distiller, which is now only readily available, that I could find, as a part of Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro, which costs a few hundred US dollars.

As for distribution via Lightning Source, their web page has this to say:

Using the distribution strength of our parent company, Ingram Book Company, your book always appears in stock and available to all Ingram customers. With over 30,000 wholesalers, retailers and booksellers in over 100 countries your titles will gain the maximum exposure in the market today. With print to order, your book is printed and ready for shipment in 12 hours or less.

They also list Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble, and other US book sellers, as well as Amazon.co.uk, Bertrams, and other UK book sellers as being in their distribution channels. There is a fee to be included in these distribution channels, but those channels are extensive and the fees minimal. They also have channels for distributing ebooks, but that, too, is for a fee, as I recall.

The way I see it, Lightning Source is for more serious publishers, while Lulu and CreateSpace are for those just testing the POD waters, or for niche publishers. At this time, T&T publications would fall into the niche category, I think. So the question is, which is better, CreateSpace or Lulu?

I have used both Lulu and CreateSpace, and from my experience, CreateSpace is better except when it comes to printing illustrations, at which Lulu has proven to do a better job. But CreateSpace seems to print quicker and ship faster and less expensively. CreateSpace doesn't do hardcovers, whereas Lulu and Lightning Source do both softcover and hardcover.

If you have your own ISBNs, as my business, Eposic, does, CreateSpace will print the barcode for you. Last time I looked, Lulu doesn't (but that might have changed or be changing soon, if I recall correctly). Having your own ISBNs is perhaps only a matter of stroking your own ego (it's cool to see your own company name listed as the publisher on Amazon rather than CreateSpace or Lulu, which is what you'll see if you use one of their ISBNs).

To see what I'm talking about with the ISBNs, look up any "that company" product on Amazon. Scroll down to the product details, and you'll see that the description states it's published either by CreateSpace or Lulu. It won't say that it's published by "that company". But if you look up Eposic's first speculative fiction anthology (The Book of Exodi, based on the theme of mass exodus -- I can't pass up such an opportunity for a shameless plug), you'll see that the product details lists Eposic as the publisher, not CreateSpace or Lulu. Actually, I can use that same ISBN to publish The Book of Exodi in any distribution channels -- CreateSpace, Amazon, Lulu, Lightning Source, wherever, because Eposic owns the ISBN. If you publish with the POD printer-provided ISBN, you can't transfer it from one POD printer to another. AND... publishing with a POD printer-provided ISBN is an indication to some people that you aren't serious about publishing. I know this isn't so true these days -- I believe that more and more people are becoming aware that there are quality products being published as POD, and this quality hardly depends on whether the publisher has its own ISBNs or uses those provided by the printer. Still, it feels majorly cool to have your own company name show up in listings for your books. And I do believe that people will view you as a more professional publishing outfit if you have your own ISBNs -- and a ton of products (which Eposic doesn't have...yet). But for a niche market like T&T, I suppose it doesn't matter so much. It didn't matter for "that company", at least not to the T&T community. Who knows if it could help "that company" to appeal to those outside the T&T community if they had their own ISBNs and showed up in product listings as the publisher of record for their products. Of course, with the latest debacle, "that company" would need more than their own ISBNs to overcome the negative publicity they are currently getting.

Some of you are aware that I once frequented Trollhalla on a regular basis and stopped. I was also the admin for the Trollhalla site, and I stopped doing that, too. I went so far as to remove the Ugh Monster game from the Eposic site for a while, as I intended (and at this point still intend) to distance myself and Eposic from T&T as I develop my own role playing game system (once I finish my second speculative fiction anthology, Out of Order, on the theme of reality rearranged -- another shameless plug). I still have this plan. But if some LEGAL means of producing and publishing T&T-related products, even if not under the T&T banner, but under some name agreed upon by the T&T community, which could then become WIDELY RECOGNIZED by the rpg community at large, then Eposic would jump on that band wagon without delay.

IF we could get Ken's okay to publish T&T materials under a name other than T&T, then we don't need Rick's approval or license. Rick only has a claim to the trademark, not to the rules themselves. Ken owns the copyright to the rules. We just need a different name, but one that can become recognized over time as being synonymous with T&T, even if it has to be word of mouth that makes the connection between the two.

So, I look forward to the results of koraq's discussions with Rick. Maybe he can reach a deal with Rick that is amenable to most interested parties. But if Rick has to read and approve every product before it can be released, that's not going to work for me. Maybe it will be okay for others, and if so, I hope koraq can swing it for you.

In the meantime, Eposic will proceed with its own plans, and keep an eye on what happens with T&T. If a miracle occurs, Eposic will rejoin the fold wholeheartedly.

[Hogscape]

Could we use the phrase 'for use with Tunnels & Trolls'?

[jongjungbu]

How DO you publish (for profit) and label it as a T&T-based product, legally?

[apeloverage]

This page seems to indicate that you could say it was compatible with Tunnels & Trolls, but not use their logo or imply that there was a relationship between you and the copyright holder.

I'd use a phrase like "an unofficial product for use with Tunnels & Trolls."

[khaydhaik]

Nov 22, 2009 22:34:07 GMT -5 Hogscape said:

Could we use the phrase 'for use with Tunnels & Trolls'?

I'm not a lawyer, but I have studied the government web sites regarding copyright and trademark laws. My understanding is that, yes, we could use a phrase such as "for use with Tunnels & Trolls," as long as we don't give the impression that we are marketing our products under the T&T trademark or that FBI approves the product (unless they do). That means we have to have another mark under which we are marketing our products.

There are many examples of this in US stores. If you are careful to look when shopping, you can find items with labels that state they are compatible with name brand products (or can be used with..., or can replace..., etc.). But the manufacturers of these "compatible" products still label them with a name other than the name brand. They are not allowed to simply state that their product is compatible with a name brand, and have the name brand be the only name on the product.

If you look at the Peryton Publishing web site, you can find their Trollhalla-Friendly logo (perytonpublishing.com/trollfriend.htm). They avoid referring to T&T by name, but simply refer to "the games of Ken St. Andre." They have published a few games with this logo. Their TAG system is similar in many respects to T&T, but is different enough I doubt Ken would have any grounds for claiming copyright infringement. Peryton's "T&T-compatible" products are labeled with their own TAG trademark, and also labeled with the Trollhalla-Friendly logo to let people know that the product can be used with T&T, without ever mentioning T&T specifically. This avoids the trademark issue completely. Very smart, IMHO.

So one practice I could recommend is for all would-be publishers of T&T products to contact Peryton Publishing and ask to use the Trollhalla-Friendly logo. Put that on your T&T-compatible products, without stating "for use with Tunnels and Trolls." Then come up with your own trademark, and market your stuff under your own mark, just as Tom markets his T&T-compatible stuff under the TAG trademark.

But besides needing a different trademark, if you didn't want to come up with your own "compatible" system, such as TAG, you might need Ken's permission to use his copyrighted material. If you only referred to SRs, attribute names, and a few weapon names, without listing the weapon stats, you might not have to worry about copyright infringement, because Ken can't copyright an abbreviation, a word, a phrase, or an idea. But if you borrow too much from the T&T rules, then you might be infringing copyright. For instance, if you included a Magic Matrix in your solo adventure and listed numerous T&T spells in the matrix, that might be considered infringement. It would be a matter for a court to decide, and that could be an iffy proposition. You might get away with mentioning one spell name, or two spell names, but how do you know where to draw the line? It's safest to avoid mentioning any, but that means you can't publish a solo with a Magic Matrix -- unless you can get Ken's approval.

You certainly would not want to copy large verbatim portions of the rules in your product without Ken's approval. You don't even want to paraphrase large portions of the rules, because paraphrasing could be considered a derivative work, and the original author (Ken) would own the copyright on any derivative of his original work (the rules). (Note: In this respect, Ken could make the claim that he owns the copyright on the T&T 6th edition rules published by "that company".)

Quoting smaller portions of the rules would be okay, if you give attribution. But how small is small? And if you quote a small portion here and a small portion there, doesn't that amount to a large portion? So the best thing to do is to avoid quoting any of the official rules, and come up with your own "compatible" rules, stated in such a way that it's obvious to any player of T&T how to convert from your game to T&T and vice versa. If you take a look at the TAG system, you'll see Tom's efforts in this regard.

When I have finished work on Eposic's second anthology, I will be looking at creating my own system, as I've mentioned previously. I will give some thought to making the system "Trollhalla-Friendly," but that will not take priority over other concepts I want in my game.

[machfront]

Precisely. (EDIT- sorry...the "precisely" was in response to apeloverage's post)

Because of nominative use, it's legal to produce something that is compatible, so long as you allow it to be known you aren't intending to walk all over their lawn, basically. It's why the Mayfair Games' Role Aids publications compatible with AD&D were aces back in the day.

Lulu:
They've improved the heck out of their shipping prices and other related issues with things outside the States, so no worries there.

I honestly don't think we need a single entity. What we need is a thriving community. Plenty of folks producing a goodly number of quality adventures and supplements.
Folks not looking aren't going to find either a single company or a community. People who are... well...

The Old-School Renaissance is not a centralized thing. It's not under one roof and there is no tent company, etc. But it's grown and grown. It's reached out. It's become more and more visible. It didn't need the likes of an "that company" to do this. In my opinon, it did this because there was not a single support entity.
That's my view on the matter, anyhow.

I think those who want to put their stuff up on Lulu, should. Those who wish to present their solos via pdf...do that! The ones that would enjoy creating home-made, saddle-stitched booklets? Go for it!
That's how it should be done. All of the above and more.


Hey!
Khaydhaik! Good to see you 'round these here parts! ;D

[khaydhaik]

Nov 23, 2009 0:07:48 GMT -5 khaydhaik said:

(Note: In this respect, Ken could make the claim that he owns the copyright on the T&T 6th edition rules published by "that company".)

I should point out that I haven't read the 6th edition rules and only assume that they are basically the 5th edition rules with mods. If they are actually an original expression of ideas, albeit labeled as T&T, then Ken would not have any grounds to claim copyright infringement.

[machfront]

I truly fail to see how "for use with Tunnels & Trolls" is not nominative use. It is. That's what it's for. Many companies have done so and without challenging the trademark of the first company's product.

Besides the "Trollhalla Friendly" logo, I've never seen a thing. It's always "For use with >trademarked product here< (or sometimes >name that makes it extremely obvious what trademarked and popular product you're talking about here<)".

Nov 23, 2009 0:07:48 GMT -5 khaydhaik said:

You certainly would not want to copy large verbatim portions of the rules in your product without Ken's approval. You don't even want to paraphrase large portions of the rules, because paraphrasing could be considered a derivative work, and the original author (Ken) would own the copyright on any derivative of his original work (the rules). (Note: In this respect, Ken could make the claim that he owns the copyright on the T&T 6th edition rules published by "that company".)

Except that he couldn't.
T&T is comprised of game mechanics. Game mechanics can not be copyrighted.
Their presentation can be.
In other words, if you lifted the feel, the tone, the wording and the visual style of 5th ed almost whole-cloth, then yes. Copyright infringement.
A product that is a very close facsimile or simulacrum as it were? No.
This is how all of the retro-clones that are out there exist and exist totally legally.

[khaydhaik]

Nov 23, 2009 0:08:47 GMT -5 machfront said:

Hey!
Khaydhaik! Good to see you 'round these here parts! ;D

Yeah, I heard about the "that company" mess from Quoghmyre. So I checked out the applicable threads here and on RPGnet. Then I couldn't help myself once I got on here... I'm as opinionated as Tom/Kopfy, but usually do a better job of restraining myself. When I can't take it any longer, I just pack up and walk away. If my temper subsides sufficiently, I come back for a while -- until things boil over again. I'm quite tired of the T&T licensing topic, though I'd love to see a license available to the T&T community, and if it ever happens, I'll be among the first to applaud it and take advantage of it. I have a 300+ paragraph T&T solo just waiting to be published, but I'm not sending it to "that company", no way, no how. The question is how to publish it without infringing any rights. I've thought about my options, and right now I don't have time to exercise any of the ones I think are worthy.

[khaydhaik]

I agree with everything you said in your last post, machfront.

It's just that there's a way to be absolutely safe from allegations of copyright and trademark infringement, and that is to avoid any reference to the original. Anything else is open to interpretation by a court.

[kopf]

Nov 22, 2009 23:34:11 GMT -5 jongjungbu said:

How DO you publish (for profit) and label it as a T&T-based product, legally?

I did not a say a d**n to contradict Khaydhaik, in whatever post this drunken fool (meaning me) typed up.

I think I was saying, listen to the man boys, and gals. Not sure exactly what i was thinking. Monday PM