Place names in fantasy worlds?

[Mindfire]

Sound advice, Woody.

 

[Weaver]

Trademark: anything can be trademarked, even a circle or a Norse God
Copyright: only thing that inclued authentic intellectual authorship can be copyrighted, that means that neither a circle nor a Norse God can be copyrighted, the fact that they may be trademarks can't stop you from using them, however it does prevent you from selling thing UNDER those names or images.

For example, let's say Tyria is a trademark, you CANNOT sell a book called Tyria, but your book can contain the word Tyria as many times as you please

Some of you may not remember this, but many years ago, a prominent RPG company attempted to trademark the word "orc." This was not permitted, because the word existed even before Tolkien, much less before TSR. (And for the record, although it would be a violation of intellectual property rights for someone to call their dark-skinned evil elves drow, it is not so to use that term for troll-like creatures, as drow is a real word from Northern European countries that means, basically, troll: troll, trow, drow. Real words can only be trademarked in specific usages.) Just as the attempt to trademark the word shire - and make all those people in rural England pay a fee for use of the names of their homes - was met with nothing but derision.

Tyria is a real place name. Even if someone were to trademark it inconnection with a game, or as a business name, it would still be possible to use it in other contexts. No one else can calls their vehicles Fords (although you are cerainly allowed to say that your character in a contemporary fantasy drives a Ford truck!), but that does not mean that the word cannot be used in the title of a novel, so long as that title is not in reference to the vehicle company's name. Totally different context which in no way infringes on the trademark owner's rights.

(*did far too much research on this topic when the clone was setting up his company to self-publish his game years ago*)

 

[Weaver]

How does this trademark thing work exactly? It baffles me that a name like Tyria or Thor can be trademarked. Suppose someone writes a book about Norse myth and it becomes popular. Is Marvel going to sue?

No, Marvel cannot sue someone who writes a story involving Norse myth. They CAN sue if someone writes a story with a character named Thor who is a close match for their comic book character, but as the trademark is (to the best of my understanding) mainly on the visual depiction of that character, alone with perhaps some very specific details of backstory, you'd have to push the similarities really hard for them to even care.

(True story: A long time ago, Wendy and Richard Pini, creators of ElfQuest, got written up themselves as guest characters in an issue of Ghost Rider, I think it was. In an interview, Richard Pini joked, "Now we're copyrighted characters and can't reproduce without written pemission from the publisher. Gee, I dread having to ask.")

 

[Teramis]

A couple of points here about copyright:

I wouldn't really see this as copyright infringement since you're not actually taking anyone's ideas, but simply a word they may or may not have made up themselves.

To the contrary: Ideas cannot be copyrighted. It is the words themselves that carry the protection of intellectual property laws. It is the particular construct of words (sometimes including names within that context) that is copyright protected. Or to paraphrase the law: as soon as something is recorded in a tangible format (like "words on paper"), it gains copyright protection. Ideas are free; it's the execution that is the touchy part.

I think fair use would apply here.

Fair Use essentially means you can take a snippet from a larger work and quote it or reuse it in order to make a commentary on it. Fair Use does not apply to the selective use of names in another work absent commentary or discussion about the original work.

Others made good points about trademarks and the visibility of the original source and of any imitators. Most names usually cannot be copyrighted but that's not a hard and fast rule. You can call someone "Tyrion" and you can call someone "Lannister", but as soon as you're giving both those names to one character, you'll probably be hearing from George R.R. Martin's publisher about a copyright violation.

It is easiest to invent your own names. They come without the baggage of other associations and do not risk the copyright thin ice.

 

[Steerpike]

A couple of points to clarify:

1. A trademark such as Thor is not necessarily limited to a specific visual depiction. It can be directed to the name itself. I suspect Marvel has a registration for the name itself as applied to comic book characters, but I haven't looked.

2. In the U.S., Fair Use doesn't only apply to commentary. The purpose of the use is only one factor in a multi-factored test to determine whether Fair Use exists. It can be an important factor, but is not dispositive in and of itself (nor necessary).

3. You also have to view the practical realities. For example, Warner Bros. has registered trademarks for a bunch of cartoon characters. They routinely go after people who use those character names, even on completely unrelated products. Warner Bros.' arguments are probably weak in many cases, and if it went to court they might lose. Still, if you are on the receiving end of one of those letters, you have to decide whether you want to go up against Warner Bros. in court. If you take a trademark action through trial you could be looking at $300K and up in legal costs and fees.

 

[mbartelsm]

Some of you may not remember this, but many years ago, a prominent RPG company attempted to trademark the word "orc." This was not permitted, because the word existed even before Tolkien, much less before TSR. (And for the record, although it would be a violation of intellectual property rights for someone to call their dark-skinned evil elves drow, it is not so to use that term for troll-like creatures, as drow is a real word from Northern European countries that means, basically, troll: troll, trow, drow. Real words can only be trademarked in specific usages.) Just as the attempt to trademark the word shire - and make all those people in rural England pay a fee for use of the names of their homes - was met with nothing but derision.

Are you sure it was trademark and not copyright?

I could be wrong though, that's how Colombian law works, not sure if it's different in other countries

 

[Steerpike]

Are you sure it was trademark and not copyright?

I could be wrong though, that's how Colombian law works, not sure if it's different in other countries

"Orc' is too short to be subject to copyright protection (and has been around way too long). So you're right on that score.

"Orc" could be a trademark, despite the fact the word has been around. It would be interesting to see exactly what the RPG company was trying to cover, because you could certainly get a trademark on that word. You can't get one that covers generic usage, however.

 

[Paladin]

I would like to thank everyone for all the very helpful suggestions and advice. I really appreciate all the feedback I received. Sorry it took me a few days to reply, I've had a busy week.

Unfortunately, I think I'm leaning toward changing the name of the Tyrian kingdom to something else. Simply to avoid all the potential headaches that could come up later because of it.

One friend of mine pointed out that while he didn't believe a name like Tyria could be successfully trademarked, since it could be argued in a court case that it's in common use, because its the name of a village and a river in the real world, among other things... however, my friend said that he thinks Arenanet might have a good chance of being able to demand royalties for using it, if they can prove that most people, when they see that word, identify it with GW2, giving it a brand identity. Assuming my friend knows what he's talking about.

I don't really expect to become so successful that Arenanet notices me anyway of course and even if I did become that successful, the legal disputes that may or may not arise don't concern me nearly as much as my readers identifying the name with GW2---that being much more of a certainty, given GW2's growing popularity. I also don't care for that game much so the last thing I would want to do is give GW2 free advertising or make it seem like I'm referencing that game in my work.

So, with all that in mind... I suppose I will start to look for alternative names for the kingdom of Tyria in my fantasy world... again.

Does anyone have any suggestions for alternative names I could use for it?

I'm doing things the difficult way and using mostly made up words or words that are not in common use for the place names in my fantasy world.

For example, instead of names like Mistwood, Dawnshore or Storm Point (a good one from ThinkerX's list), I mostly use names like the Town of Baramus, Amorika Castle or Swanzi Woods---names that make the world sound more unique and alien to readers. Those names I mentioned are just an example by the way, I'm not actually using them.


As for using names I see in other stories... I just want to say that I'm actually extremely respectful of other people's work and I would never willingly or knowingly infringe on copyright or plagiarize anything. I'm also very protective of my own stories and I can certainly identify with other writers feeling the same way. A writer should be protective of their work and their rights to it.

I've spent countless weeks of my life developing my stories and fantasy world over the past several years, including the names I use in it. Many of those names are words I made up from scratch. When it comes to writing and story development, I'm definitely not lazy.

~Paladin~

 

[Jess A]

Tyriaen?

Tyraen?

Tyrien?

Tyrhian?

Tyrhia?

Endless possibilities. I hope that you find one to work for you.

 

[Paladin]

Tyriaen?

Tyraen?

Tyrien?

Tyrhian?

Tyrhia?

Endless possibilities. I hope that you find one to work for you.

Thanks for the suggestions. Yeah the name doesn't have to be similar to Tyria at all. I'm open to any possibilities at this point. If I have to rename the kingdom, I would probably want to just start over with a completely different sounding name anyway. I don't really want to be reminded of the old name I'm being forced to leave behind...

 

[Mindfire]

Thanks for the suggestions. Yeah the name doesn't have to be similar to Tyria at all. I'm open to any possibilities at this point. If I have to rename the kingdom, I would probably want to just start over with a completely different sounding name anyway. I don't really want to be reminded of the old name I'm being forced to leave behind...

Aspen
Avreth
Cyrhal
Kenoriath
Masura

 

[Weaver]

Are you sure it was trademark and not copyright?

Yes, they attempted to trademark it... Didn't work, though.

(In the US, names cannot be copyrighted, only trademarked.)

 

[Weaver]

"Orc' is too short to be subject to copyright protection (and has been around way too long). So you're right on that score.

"Orc" could be a trademark, despite the fact the word has been around. It would be interesting to see exactly what the RPG company was trying to cover, because you could certainly get a trademark on that word. You can't get one that covers generic usage, however.

I'm fairly certain TSR was trying to trademark the generic concept along with the word itself, which is why they didn't get away with it. As for the people trying to trademark shire and claim ownership of that word in all its usages... The gods only know what they were thinking.

This is why Games Workshop spells the name of their green goblin/troll-like aliens Ork instead of Orc, and why the Sci-Fi Channel changed their name to SyFy - these words are different (spelled stupidly, in the case of the latter) and not in common usage and therefor can be owned. (Humans are weird when it comes to the things they want to own and the things they think should be shared for free with everyone.)

 

[Sheriff Woody]

This is why Games Workshop spells the name of their green goblin/troll-like aliens Ork instead of Orc, and why the Sci-Fi Channel changed their name to SyFy - these words are different (spelled stupidly, in the case of the latter) and not in common usage and therefor can be owned. (Humans are weird when it comes to the things they want to own and the things they think should be shared for free with everyone.)

It's all about money. If someone wants to mention SyFy in the media, they have to pay royalties.

 

[Steerpike]

It's all about money. If someone wants to mention SyFy in the media, they have to pay royalties.

You don't have to pay royalties merely to make mention of SyFy or another trademark. I'm sure the channel wanted a stronger mark, though, and SyFy is stronger than Sci-Fi was.

 

[Sheriff Woody]

You don't have to pay royalties merely to make mention of SyFy or another trademark. I'm sure the channel wanted a stronger mark, though, and SyFy is stronger than Sci-Fi was.

When dealing with promotions, you do have copyright to worry about, and anything in the media can fall under scrutiny when used without the appropriate permissions, even if used outside of a promotional context (for example, news). This is typically not enforced, but it can be under the right circumstances.

It's the reason why the NFL doesn't allow mention of the terms NFL, NFC, AFC, Super Bowl, Super Sunday, Miami Dolphins, etc. in the media without appropriate permissions - because they want to make money.

The NFL, just like a television network, has a property interest in all descriptions and accounts of their product, and they make their money by selling these rights to television and radio stations. It's much easier to make a case when your name is SyFy than if it was the generic old Sci-Fi.

I've been working in the television industry for nearly a decade, and it's amazing to see all the little things we must account for that the viewer at home has no idea about.

 

[Steerpike]

There is a difference between what companies say and do and what the law is, however. Some companies are rabid about their branding, and production companies and the like have to realize they might get sued even if they haven't done anything wrong. A lot of the paying and permission that goes on in various industries reflects that reality.

In truth, if you show a person in movie or on TV using a product in its intended manner, there no legal remedy for the trademark owner if they want to stop you. The best they can do if they have a famous mark is try to claim you are tarnishing the mark somehow. Likewise, if someone write an article detailing what happened at an NFL game, they do not need the NFL's permission to do so. But, if the NFL decides to come after you anyway, even on a spurious claim, they have a lot of money behind them.

Trademarks do not protect against people talking about or describing your product. That's simply not the function they serve. Likewise, copyright does not prevent this sort of thing. However, companies with tons of money who might sue you and force you to defend yourself in court, to the tune of $300K to 500K or more, do a very good job of preventing a lot of this stuff.

 

[Sheriff Woody]

In truth, if you show a person in movie or on TV using a product in its intended manner, there no legal remedy for the trademark owner if they want to stop you.

Using the product, yes...but showing the logo is a different story. You can show an iPhone all you want because it's a consumer product, just like a shirt or a teapot, but you can run into some trouble if you show the Apple logo without Apple's consent.

I've spent my fair share of time hiding logos for various TV programs, films, etc. It's a pain, but it's better than paying money to show it, and it's a heck of a lot better than a lawsuit.

 

[Steerpike]

Using the product, yes...but showing the logo is a different story. You can show an iPhone all you want because it's a consumer product, just like a shirt or a teapot, but you can run into some trouble if you show the Apple logo without Apple's consent.

This is true, but you only run into trouble for the most part because Apple has money and can come after you with a trademark claim even if they can't win on it. When you're dealing with a trademark, the standard for infringement is "likelihood of confusion." In other words, your use has to be confusingly similar to that of the trademark owner. There are various unfair competition laws that can come into play as well, and if you are creating a false sense of affiliation with the trademark owner, you can also have some problems. If I'm the trademark owner, I suppose I'd go down that path to an extent - a false impression of product association. But that's not as easy to win on as it seems - it still hinges on creating some kind of confusion in the marketplace.

When you are dealing with "famous" trademarks (most marks don't qualify, but I'm sure Apple would), then you have to worry about trademark dilution as well. In other words, the trademark owner has remedies outside of regular trademark infringement, which requires a likelihood of confusion. Dilution occurs by "blurring" or "tarnishment." Blurring is when a mark is used on goods unrelated to that of the trademark owner. For the owner of a famous mark, that behavior can be stopped. But it still requires use of the trademark as a mark, not the mere depiction of it. "Tarnishment," on the other hand, is when the is mark is portrayed in a bad light, often by associating it with undesirable goods or services. Again, you have to have a famous mark to bring a tarnishment claim, so it is not available to the vast majority of trademark owners. Toys R Us brought a successful tarnishment claim against an adult web site, claiming (probably rightly) that the use of its marks on sites with adult content would harm the mark.

In any event, it is important for writers to be able to distinguish between the claims copyright and trademark owners make (which are generally along the lines of "you need our permission to do anything") and what the law actually protects. For most, however, the true issue is the cost of defending a suit. That will scare off plenty of people who aren't doing anything wrong.

 

[icebladeaskante]

Coming up with names (of both people, places and things) is the hardest part I find. That being said, if I created a town, somehow got it published and someone else liked the name well enough to use it for one of their villages, I wouldn't complain that loudly provided there are some definitive differences between our places. For example, if my town was similar to Tortuga and theirs was a peaceful bucolic country village. I understand the difficulty of coming up with names.

How ever I also understand some authors would prefer that what they write including names remain as their property as much as possible and don't actively open the nearest books to me to find a name for x. If you come up with a name independently of a franchise good for you but should anything happen the onus is on you to prove that you did think it up without influence or before the popularity of the franchise should anything happen. And there is the whole do you want your readers to potentially connect your kingdom to Guild Wars.

Words have associations and that influences what we imagine when we read. If you simply say in passing in a story, the granny reached down to pick up the paper and went inside, everybody would picture her differently depending on their memories of their grandmother or if they weren't close or had many memories they might picture the stereotype perpetrated by cinema and tv. So your brief character becomes both fat and thin, grey and white haired, blue and brown eyed ... the list goes on. So awareness of association in the country you are publishing in becomes important. A lot of British and Irish fantasy reader have read Terry Pratchett's Discworld, so I would never use Ankh-Morpork as a town in my stories, because people would think of his Ankh-Morpork.

A tip I noticed Robert Asprin use was names written backwards. If you think of your kingdom as Tyria, why not name it Airyt.