Condottiere | 21 Feb 2007 11:32 a.m. PST |
There seems to be two rule sets covering the same great expanse of time, which have (or will have) the same title: The Art of War by TMPers Doug Larsen ("Merlin") and Rocky Russo 1066.us --AND-- The Art of War by "renowned rules designers and players." (According to their website) link Aside from possible legal wrangles, anyone see any potential for confusion in two rules using identical titles? Are there any other examples of this in gaming? |
the trojan bunny | 21 Feb 2007 11:35 a.m. PST |
There is also The Art of War form Warhammer Historical! Mike |
basileus66 | 21 Feb 2007 11:38 a.m. PST |
And even The Art of War from Sun Tzu (an ancient ruleset for 1:1 scale battles and campaigns) |
John the OFM | 21 Feb 2007 11:40 a.m. PST |
PLENTY of room for confusion. |
aecurtis | 21 Feb 2007 11:43 a.m. PST |
They're all obviously homages to Art Carney, who was seriously wounded in WWII. Even that Chinese feller's book. Rest in peace, Art. Allen |
vtsaogames | 21 Feb 2007 11:51 a.m. PST |
Two out of three falls? Pistols at 10 paces? |
Condottiere | 21 Feb 2007 11:56 a.m. PST |
There is also The Art of War form Warhammer Historical! But are those separate rules, or a "guide" book with army lists for WAB? |
nazrat | 21 Feb 2007 12:16 p.m. PST |
There's also a lame SF 40K rip-off that is by the same name
Apparently since it's a commonly used title the people in question aren't bothered by it being used again and again, or it simply isn't actionable. |
Lentulus | 21 Feb 2007 12:19 p.m. PST |
And don't forget Machiavelli's big-battle supplement to his "Prince" role-playing system. |
jeffrsonk | 21 Feb 2007 12:47 p.m. PST |
It is probably time for wargames designers to search harder for names for their rules sets. "The Art of War" is apparently taken. |
rddfxx | 21 Feb 2007 1:05 p.m. PST |
It is fairly common in the publishing industry for unrelated books to share titles, apart from specific copyrighted content and characters (e.g.'s Harry Potter and James Bond). Piquet has a "Band of Brothers" supplement for Medievals, there are any number of "Hannibal" or "Alexander the Great" biographies. One could not make the case that Larsen and Russo have exclusive title to "Art of War". I'm not confused yet
. |
adub74 | 21 Feb 2007 1:12 p.m. PST |
"And even The Art of War from Sun Tzu (an ancient ruleset for 1:1 scale battles and campaigns)" Is this the one designed for 1800mm scale (a.k.a God's own scale)? I'm still waiting for Dom to finish the decals for this range before I get into this one. |
Condottiere | 21 Feb 2007 1:13 p.m. PST |
Well
even if they didn't trademark the title "officially" for a wargame rules set, they may be able to make a case that they indeed have a trademark right in the title for wargame rules (other books of a similar title in different genres would not be a trademark infringement). Were there any other "Art of War" wargame rules published before their rules? Well, don't want to stir things up. :) |
rddfxx | 21 Feb 2007 1:41 p.m. PST |
Trademarks are not like copyrights -- you have to file for a trademark; a copyright accrues to original material when it is created. I suppose Slitherine could beat them to the punch on this one. |
Condottiere | 21 Feb 2007 2:09 p.m. PST |
you have to file for a trademark
Not really. In many jurisdictions trademark rights can be established through use in the marketplace. It's a matter of proof. If you register the TM then you have additional remedies and rights, which are statutory. |
Daffy Doug | 21 Feb 2007 2:22 p.m. PST |
As rules sets go, our use of the ubiquitous title "The Art of War", is the oldest, dating clear back to the first edition published in 1983. So, if there was any "actionable-objectionable" carp, we would have to win. (Btw, the full title of ours is: "THE ART of WAR, TACTICAL WARFARE IN MINIATURE FOR PRE-GUNPOWDER ARMIES." Earlier subtitles were: "Tactical warfare in miniature 700 BC to 1500 AD"; and "Tactical warfare in miniature from the Bronze Age to the coming of the gunne.") 1066.us |
Bobgnar | 21 Feb 2007 2:55 p.m. PST |
The War of Art -- Rules for fighting over possesion of Names so important that there is no Substitute, including the Scenario of The Beatles estate vs Steve Jobs and Big Ten Burito vs The Big Ten, Montana State vs French Designer, Claude Montana, the Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. vs. Polo, the magazine of the U.S. Polo Association, and the biggest of all (to date, The Georgia Tech Yellowjackets, whose mascot is Buzz the bee, have filed suit against the Salt Lake City Buzz, a minor league baseball team whose mascot is Buzzy the bee. Both teams sell merchandise with BUZZ on it; Tech says it has the rights. It seems movies and books are not covered in these rules as there are many examples of these having the same names within the genre but being different and books and movies having the same name with almost nothing, if anything in common. |
brevior est vita | 21 Feb 2007 3:15 p.m. PST |
As other folks have pointed out in other threads on this subject, the authors are currently using Art of War simply as a working title for the new rules. If the discussion forum devoted to the rules is anything to go by, it appears that there will be a different title by the time they are commercially released. |
SauveQuiPeut | 21 Feb 2007 4:01 p.m. PST |
They could always try 'art Of war' |
elrond hubbard 3 | 21 Feb 2007 5:39 p.m. PST |
"They could always try 'art Of war'" Or re-arrange the letters to "Raw Fart, O" Just a suggestion
|
Condottiere | 21 Feb 2007 6:48 p.m. PST |
|
Lentulus | 21 Feb 2007 7:14 p.m. PST |
And just to make the whole conversation self-referential: link |
Jim McDaniel | 21 Feb 2007 7:57 p.m. PST |
Still I must find any legal action arising out of this infinitely more interesing and potentially classey than the proceedings aover what to do with the late, Anna Nicole's remains. |
Condottiere | 21 Feb 2007 9:15 p.m. PST |
And just to make the whole conversation self-referential. Just shows how close-knit the gaming community tends to be. I guess. |
gaiusrabirius | 21 Feb 2007 9:17 p.m. PST |
|
Condottiere | 22 Feb 2007 6:10 a.m. PST |
How about: War's Art? A game where players hurl art at each other. Rules lawyers will have fun arguing over what constitutes "art", while others will attempt to include "performance art" into the definition. The "avant-garde" will skirmish to weaken the enemy, before the heavy "abstract impressionist" battalions crash into their lines supported by "expresionist" reserves. What fun! |
adster | 22 Feb 2007 6:33 a.m. PST |
Anyone who is that easily confused by similar titles should probably not bother trying to read the contents of a set of wargames rules
|
Lord Platinum | 22 Feb 2007 6:35 a.m. PST |
Don't forget about the crappy movie with Wesley Snipes in it with the same title. But leave it to "The Onion" to have already made the most of this idea: link |
GuruDave | 22 Feb 2007 7:00 a.m. PST |
Art 'O' War for the kids? In case you can't tell, I typed the "O" backwards. |
brass1 | 22 Feb 2007 7:39 a.m. PST |
Aside from possible legal wrangles, anyone see any potential for confusion in two rules using identical titles? Oh, I'm sure at least some of you knew this was coming: From the US Copyright Office FAQ: Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases. In some cases, these things may be protected as trademarks. Emphasis added. And yes, you can claim trademark status based on use in the market, although trademark protection merely gives the holder the right to sue for infringement and any resulting litigation would probably be far more hassle than it would be worth (unless you're Games Workshop, of course). I would like to think -despite all evidence to the contrary- that most gamers are sufficiently intelligent to distinguish among the Larsen/Russo rules, the Osprey/Slitherine rules, the writings of Sun-Tze and Machiavelli, and the movie with Weslie Snipes that nobody has brought up yet. In extremis, I guess they could go with "Faro Wart"? Or maybe something entirely different like "Don't Buy This Rulebook Unless You Know What It Is". LT |
nazrat | 22 Feb 2007 8:13 a.m. PST |
"Or re-arrange the letters to "Raw Fart, O" Just a suggestion
" Elrond, thanks for the early morning laugh! Nothing like mentioning poots to raise a smile
8)= |
Daffy Doug | 22 Feb 2007 9:58 a.m. PST |
Art 'O' War for the kids? In case you can't tell, I typed the "O" backwards.
:) |
El Jocko | 22 Feb 2007 10:31 a.m. PST |
OMFG D00d AOW is t3h UBER 1337 R0XX0RZ LOL |
RockyRusso | 22 Feb 2007 11:06 a.m. PST |
Hi Actually, I first used the Title in '77 before we agreed to merge and cooperate on our rules. In print, at and showed at the first "Genghis Con" in Denver. My original impulse was to have a set of rules based on figure frontage and stand removal for simplicity. In Denver, the gamers in the area were playing 4 different sets of rules that were mutually exclusive. For GC, I wanted to run a tournament that would do for any figs under any system and be simple enough to teach in a few minutes. As the rules play of a sincle 8 1/2 x 11 sheet, this worked for me. Doug and I realized we were actually working towards the same thing, and merged the rules. The title chose was as homage to both Sun Tsu and CWC Oman. Rocky |
Cyclops | 22 Feb 2007 12:12 p.m. PST |
'Anyone who is that easily confused by similar titles should probably not bother trying to read the contents of a set of wargames rules
' They're not similar, they're identical. For anyone who doesn't frequent TMP (and that's a fair few), any confusion would be understandable and almost certain. |
brass1 | 22 Feb 2007 2:48 p.m. PST |
They're not similar, they're identical. For anyone who doesn't frequent TMP (and that's a fair few), any confusion would be understandable and almost certain. Understandable? Perhaps. Almost certain? Only if you didn't take the time to read past the title. LT |
adster | 24 Feb 2007 5:29 p.m. PST |
"They're not similar, they're identical. For anyone who doesn't frequent TMP (and that's a fair few), any confusion would be understandable and almost certain." If you get confused someone here will be happy to describe the different cover art to you
|
Cyclops | 26 Feb 2007 5:45 a.m. PST |
If I remember correctly, I think that Babylon 5 had a similar episode about a workers strike, though I can't recall the outcome. Apparently it was resolved succesfully since they did continue to operate. CC |
Cyclops | 26 Feb 2007 5:48 a.m. PST |
That wasn't me. Cacique Caribe by the look of it. Here's what I wrote- 'I was thinking about online sales. I keep forgetting that many people actually have stores to go to. Here in my part of the UK it's pretty much GW or nothing. Everything I buy I get online where descriptions and photos are often scarce.' |
brevior est vita | 23 Apr 2007 7:55 a.m. PST |
As mentioned earlier in the thread, AoW was only a working title for the playtest draft of the rules. According to recent postings in the Slitherine discussion group, the official product title will be Field of Glory. So there should no longer be any reason for confusion with other ancient-medieval miniatures rule sets. Cheers, Scott K. |
Aloysius the Gaul | 23 Apr 2007 5:24 p.m. PST |
FoG? how appropriate for wargame rules!! |