# Re-Using a Popular Term



## Mindfire (Oct 22, 2012)

How risky is it to use a word or name that's become widely associated with another IP or franchise? 

More specifically, I'm thinking about renaming the chief priest of one of my books religious systems the "Avatar", because he is considered to be the avatar of the gods' will on earth, symbolically married to the moon goddess, etc, etc. However, the word "avatar" is strongly associated with James Cameron's Avatar, Avatar: The Last Airbender, and Avatar: The Legend of Korra.

The term Avatar comes from Hinduism AFAIK, and refers to the earthly incarnation of a god or what have you. How risky would it be for me to re-use this term after it's become attached to so many popular and successful franchises?


----------



## shangrila (Oct 22, 2012)

Your specific example I wouldn't worry about. Avatar predates those franchises by a fair bit and, of the three you listed, I think only Avatar the movie is widely known. Which isn't really a problem, since it has nothing to do with avatars of gods.

Honestly, I think you'd have to go fairly far to be worried about something like this. Basing your stories around magical rings, for example, would remind most people of LOTR and might annoy them. But a generic term like avatar, something the source material you're worried about associating with copied from an original source, I doubt people would worry too much about it.

Though you will get some who connect it with the movie. Those are just the kinds of people you'd ignore.


----------



## Mindfire (Oct 22, 2012)

shangrila said:


> Your specific example I wouldn't worry about. Avatar predates those franchises by a fair bit and, of the three you listed, I think only Avatar the movie is widely known. Which isn't really a problem, since it has nothing to do with avatars of gods.
> 
> Honestly, I think you'd have to go fairly far to be worried about something like this. Basing your stories around magical rings, for example, would remind most people of LOTR and might annoy them. But a generic term like avatar, something the source material you're worried about associating with copied from an original source, I doubt people would worry too much about it.
> 
> Though you will get some who connect it with the movie. Those are just the kinds of people you'd ignore.



I was actually more concerned about people connecting it with the tv show than the movie, mostly because those in my social circle are (like myself) huge fans of both shows. The show seems to have a sizable following on this site also, which lead me to believe that my audience will likely be reasonably familiar with the series as well.


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 22, 2012)

I wouldn't worry about it, either. I'm not a fan of the show or movie. I've seen the term 'avatar' used in numerous science fiction and fantasy novels.


----------



## Graylorne (Oct 22, 2012)

Besides, I think more people connect the word 'avatar' with Steerpike's cat.


----------



## Penpilot (Oct 22, 2012)

I wouldn't worry abou it ether. If it's what you think works the best for your story, use it. Just be aware for people like me who loved Cameron's movie and I loved the cartoon's, will make a comparison just off the bat in hearing that term. So when you do use it, best to establish quickly and clearly what your Avatar is to quash those comparisons. 

I also there was a forgotten realms novel series called the Avatar series which pre-dates the cartoon and movies. I got the first book way back when, and even with my youthful and undiscerning tastes of that time, I really didn't like it.


----------



## SlimShady (Oct 22, 2012)

Don't worry about.  Most normal people probably wouldn't even care.


----------



## arroncook (Oct 27, 2012)

Just have to be careful with definition and usage. If you clearly copy an entire concept, don't bother trying to publish it. But otherwise, just clearly demark and define the concept and you'll probably be fine.


----------



## Shadow Fox (Oct 28, 2012)

You you establish what the avatar is in your story, than the only correlation they can make to the Avatar franchise is the word itself, and this applies to other trademark words and concepts as well. take for example using magic rings, as long as it isn't a carbon copy of the LOTR concept, it is not the same thing. 

I often find the concept of something being 'too cliche' as annoying. I mean if you think about it, the originality of a world or a story plot does not equate whether or not it is good as tends to have more to do with how well the story is told. As for this, I don't see anything wrong with using the word in the way its supposed to be used.


----------



## Shadow Fox (Oct 28, 2012)

Content deleted due to duplication.


----------



## SeverinR (Oct 29, 2012)

The term has a real definition that predates the possible TM.
So as long as your not talking about a blue skinned extra tall humanoid that swings from trees with USB ports in their braids, I think your safe.


----------



## Shockley (Oct 30, 2012)

If it bothers you, there are plenty of fantastic terms that are available. Medieval Christianity provided us with a few interesting terms: Manifest(ation), Incarnate(nation), Pantocrator (really meaning Almighty, but having implications of God-as-Man), Theotokos (God-Bearer, literally), Incarno (incarnate, taking to its Latin root), etc.


----------



## krunchee (Oct 31, 2012)

I certainly don't think you're in any trouble using avatar... I'd be more inclined to think that popular names would cause more grief, if your lead character was a wizard named gandalf, I'd perhaps rethink it.


----------



## psychotick (Oct 31, 2012)

Hi,

As long as you're referring to him as "The Avatar" then you're safe in my view. Avatar is a noun in use for centuries, and it has the specific meaning you're looking for, i.e. the representative of a god on Earth.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## TermiteWriter (Nov 4, 2012)

Avatar was a word long before James Cameron used it in that special way.  You can't copyright a word that came into existence in the 18th century, according to Dictionary.com.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 4, 2012)

TermiteWriter said:


> Avatar was a word long before James Cameron used it in that special way.  You can't copyright a word that came into existence in the 18th century, according to Dictionary.com.



It isn't copyright that is at issue. A single word like that only gets trademark protection and for that it doesn't matter how old the word is.


----------



## SeverinR (Nov 5, 2012)

Tm would not prevent the use of the word in a document in proper use? Just from using as a title or major selling point of a book or movie, wouldn't it?
I mean if anyone could Tm a common word, then we would run out of words eventually, or have to check to see if we have to pay royalties to someone because we said a Tm'd word.

Even if "Avatar" is trademarked, it could still be used in books, couldn't it? As long as it is not associated with these Avatars?
If trademarked, would everyone have to change the name given to the pictures that represent people posting in forums?


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 5, 2012)

Yes, in general you'd have to be using the trademarked term as a trademark to run into trouble. There are some exceptions for famous marks, but normally you have to be using them in a confusing manner. Just trying to clear up the misconception that words that are old or in the public domain can't have any sort of protection associated with them.


----------

