Hi!
I don’t understand why it is illegal to distribute the Mario Clone game but legal to distribute screenshots of the game.
Both contain copyright material for free without the owner of the art’s permission. But only the game’s link got taken down.
I understand that you’re probably right goussej, and I’m probably wrong. You seem like you know a lot about copyright law from your other posts, I’m sincerely not trying to undermine you.
Hi
At first, you have to think about the territoriality principle, i.e find the law(s) of which countries are practicable.
Secondly, you have to check whether the involved countries signed the Berne Convention (it’s trivial as almost all countries signed it), the Geneva convention, the Rome convention and others conventions of the World Intellectual Property Organization.
Thirdly, you have to determine the country of origin, often the country in which the content was published for the first time.
Fourthly, you have to find how the “fair” uses of copyrighted works are defined and implemented in the laws of those countries (the country of origin which often prevails and the country of the person using the copyrighted work).
Some countries allow to use some copyrighted works to inform people, in recent news, in parodies, in text and data mining. We speak about “fair use” or “fair dealing”. There is no homogeneous implementation of those principles in the national laws, I admit that it doesn’t ease anything for those who may wish to use copyrighted works.
Youtube has become particularly picky since the Content ID has been enabled. Numerous famous Youtube users who upload lots of videos containing copyrighted works prefer joining some networks. Those users share a part of their profits with them and they manage the juridical risks in return.
In my humble opinion, there is a clear distinction to do between copyrights and authors’ rights, I find legitimate that an author chooses a license for her/his creations as long as it doesn’t contain too much restrictions and I find legitimate that the people who’d like to use her/his stuff must respect the license, it’s the same for the source code as I would certainly prosecute someone who would infringe the license of my source code.
If there is no license, consider that the artwork is copyrighted. As the right to inform is quite protected in numerous countries (mainly on recent news, it becomes more complicated for other news), you can use at least some parts of copyrighted works only for this purpose but I advise you to obtain the prior consent of the copyright owners in other cases.
I know that tons of websites take lots of risks but I advise you all to take no risk in your projects. Sometimes, the copyright owners wait for months or years before contacting you and/or sending a DMCA/LCEN takedown/staydown notice, which was what happened Pokemon Safari (Nintendo waited 10 years) and T.U.E.R (Sega probably waited for several months). Nowadays, the corporations take care of their rank in search engines. Trademark registration is very expensive, protecting the registered trademarks on the long term is crucial and very expensive too. Nintendo has a long story of closing tons of fan websites, websites of clone projects (fake Super Mario 64 HD, tons of Pokemon/Mario fan games, …) and emulators’ websites (snes9x, GBA4iOS, …).
I just think that even though it may be technically illegal, it’s not really ‘wrong’ per say.
i really dont think Nintendo is being hurt by the mario clone, and it’s really good experience for the deveoper.
Companies are just incredible myopic sometimes
Because it’s actually not. Nintendo is famous for claiming copyright on everything Nintendo related…including screen shots. It depends on the context, of course. If you review a game and illustrate it with some screen shots, they might not care. But if you create a book that includes screen shots of their games, they very well might (like they did in the past). That’s even more true for videos. Nintendo doesn’t like videos of their games on YouTube either.
Hi
I don’t disagree with you, I didn’t write that I agree with very restrictive licenses. However, when I disagree with the licensing terms of the some contents, I don’t use them instead of violating these licensing terms and no way I will never encourage artists and developers to violate licensing terms.
There is a difference between what is legal and what is legitimate. I respect the paternity right (attribution, telling who created the original work(s)) and the moral rights of the authors. I often find other restrictions abusive but I don’t encourage people to violate those laws. In my humble opinion, if you really disagree with copyright laws, a much more constructive solution consists in militating against them. Moreover, infringing copyrights can harm others too, not only the primary infringer, it’s a bit selfish to do that on a forum that you don’t host yourself, it involves other people who might disagree with taking useless risks for yet another Mario clone.
It would be a good experience for the developer if he used homemade sprites or sprites made by someone else under free sharing license too. Using copyrighted materials isn’t an obligation. There are tons of sprites under more acceptable licenses on many websites including OpenGameArt.org. Some games are included in the GNU Linux distros, it’s a good source of sprites and models too (even for 3D).
I partially agree with EgonOlsen. If you use screenshots for a review, Nintendo must respect your right to inform, your freedom of expression. When you put Nintendo’s artworks and trademarks into your own game, it’s a completely different matter.
Considering Nintendo backs websites like The Mario Fan Games Galaxy which “steals” a lot of their art content, I don’t really think there’s a problem with Mario-clones at all.
Also considering they are a software giant, most likely anything you create with their art wont distract from their products.
That being said, there was a complete unity-made Super Mario 64 remake which was silenced. Though, this was a giant project, and it still applies to what I wrote above.
It’s technically illegal, but no one cares. Nothing will happen to you. The worst that will happen is getting an angry gouessej, and that’s already came.
No one cares about yet another Mario clone, as pointed out by most people here. That said, I completely agree with gouessej; you shouldn’t use copyrighted content, that’s a bad habit. Plus, there’s a shit-ton of free images on the internet, why not use those?
On the other hand, to be fair, it may be really nice to use official artwork from your favourite games — I honestly don’t know, I always make my own, and only use content from the internet for testing purposes —, and thus tempting.
J0 
Where have you seen that Nintendo backs those websites? Making false peremptory claims with wrong references doesn’t mean that you’re right. Just to be sure that there is no misunderstanding, “to back something” can mean the same thing than “to support something”. The claim at the bottom “All Nintendo material is © Nintendo” … doesn’t mean that this website is allowed to use those copyrighted materials.
Yes Super Mario 64 HD was silenced, I quoted it earlier but maybe you don’t fully read my posts.
You assume that nobody cares but I assume that illegal things have nothing to do on JGO, both for pedagogical reasons (what J0 explained, i.e the bad habit of using illegally copyrighted contents and infringing licensing terms) and for legal reasons (I assume that the people liable for this forum don’t want to waste their time with handling DMCA/LCEN takedown/staydown notices).
Sorry to insist but tolerating this in general puts us into a vicious circle, not specifically when the artworks come from Nintendo. I discussed several times with some (computer) artists reluctant to participate to unpaid projects because of the lack of “respect” for their artworks. The more the developers take the bad habit of infringing the licensing terms of the artworks, the more the computer artists will be reluctant to help the developers, the more the developers refusing to create the artworks they need will infringe the licensing terms of the existing artworks, etc.
I suggest a virtuous circle: the more the developers are forced to use only the artworks they are allowed to, the more the computer artists will have some consideration for them, the less they will be reluctant to help the developers, the more the artworks available under free sharing licenses or specifically licensed to be legally used in some projects will gain visibility, the less the copyrighted artworks will be attractive and considered as unavoidable or “must have”. This virtuous circle favours cultural diversity.
I understand the temptation of using the contents of your favourite games as J0 said but infringing the licensing terms isn’t the best way of showing respect to the authors. Programming a game takes some time, creating nice artworks too, both deserve some respect.
There’s a Mario convention every year. Mfgg is one of the main booths there. Nintendo execs play the games made by the sites users. They obviously don’t care. You’re being entirely too analytical. Get that stick out of your butt! :^) I’m not going to run around and get you source after source. You can choose to believe me or not; If not, that’s fine.
Of course not, they’re giant text walls.
Correct. Though anyone on here making a mario clone has a 0.0001% of getting a DCMA. And even then if they do, it’s just as simple as removing their game.
Well this topic is about artwork coming from Nintendo. So that is all I will talk about.
There is no evidence of this. To say that artists wont help developers because developers steal artwork from Nintendo is absolutely insane.
If someone wants to make a Mario clone, the best thing they can do is use Mario art. People have been doing it for years, and you’re figuratively the only one upset about it!
I also agree, that you shouldn’t use copyrighted content in general.
But in this case a developer simply tryed to clone a game for learning purposes.
Also he published it primarily to get some criticism from some experienced developers over here (and maybe some positiv feedback to get some motivation to).
He never intended to sell or even publish it, it is only a personal project, so I really can’t see a problem.
OFC he could use some free art, but it isn’t that motivating to create a clone without having the real art in it…
Just my opinion
I disagree with Springrbua, his project is public, he shouldn’t use copyrighted materials and I suggested him some alternative solutions. Considering than some free art isn’t “real art” is an insult to those artists who put their contents under free sharing licenses. I don’t criticize his ability to program a game, I criticized his ability to respect the artworks’ terms of use.
orange451, you don’t respect me, my post aren’t giant text of walls, I expose my arguments but ignoring them is easier for you. Don’t be surprised if you don’t understand what I mean.
I think that some artists refuse to help or work for developers who lack of respect for licensing terms in general. “People have been doing it for years” doesn’t mean that it’s right or fair, people can be doing something wrong for years. Using similar artworks under Creative Commons isn’t the end of the world, come on.
In my humble opinion, no illegal content should appear on JGO but as I’m neither a moderator nor a person liable for this forum, it’s not up to me to decide but I don’t plan to give up.
Links to downloads that contain copyright material arent illegal mr goussej, only the content is illegal.
[quote=""]
Come on, they’re practically essays.
[quote=""]
Who? What artists?
I dont think that the mario clone hurt anyone except for hypothetical people that may have hypothetically become upset that the clone existed.
That’s probably because I’m not a nice person.
lets just all agree that Nintendo has some of the strictest copyright polices in place in the entire industry. This might suck, but so do many things in life.
Whether you like it or not, it exists. You may, if you choose, decide to ignore those policies and take a risk like many other people have in the past and use the copyrighted material but it is a personal risk in doing so.
And those poor little artists being abused? Well they got paid by Nintendo and gave up any rights to the images a long time back. For artists that actually do own the copyright to their own images, this is another storey entirely, I am 100% with the artists here in that their images get used, sold without their consent all the time and this is just plain wrong.
Don’t get me wrong, I never said it isn’t real art, I just said, that it isn’t the same as the original art (if it is, that they can get problems to right?).
Also I really don’t think that any of the artists would be angry if he knows about this clone. On the contrary, I think he would be happy, at least I would be, if someone would use my art…
I don’t say, that you should ignore the copyright, but I say that in this case nobody gets hurt.
And again, a Mario clone without the original Marion art isn’t the same as a Mario clone with the original Mario art, at least for me. If you create a Mario-inspired Jump’n Run, then you definitly should use other art, just to have a unique game insteadof a clone.
[quote=“TheMeatMan,post:13,topic:57478”]
I have to disagree 
[quote=“TheMeatMan,post:13,topic:57478”]
TheMeatMan, numerous forums used mainly to share illegally copyrighted contents have been closed (in France too) whereas they didn’t host the contents but only links to download them. I cannot explain and give numerous examples because you would accuse me of writing essays, this one (in French) is a pertinent example. DPStream and at least 16 forums used to share links to pirated contents were blocked and closed in 2013. You go on making false peremptory claims and please try avoiding to misspell my pseudonym.
Springrbua, I think that an artist who puts her/his artworks under a free sharing license might be happy to learn that someone uses them in a kind of Mario if the terms of the license are respected, this is what I suggested. Cloning a copyrighted game while insisting on cloning its copyrighted contents too is a bad idea to me.
ziozio, it’s not only a personal risk as it involves JGO. Where is the limit concerning the authors and the copyright owners? If you don’t want to respect the licensing terms of a content, don’t use it, it’s simple, do I need to write an essay for that?
Screenshots come from my clone game :)
I understood what Goussej means
when i decided to make this clone of Mario, the purpose was just to learn Libgdx and 2D game development
I didn’t want to spend / loose time on sprites and graphical stuff in general, so I went to the simplest solution, use the originals
Goussej, I think you see me as a guy who wants to sell something using copyrighted elements, but it’s not the case at all,
my goal as i said is just to improve my development skills
That’s why i posted it on a Java forum, I just wanted to have feedbacks from experimented developers, discussions about patterns used to develop a 2D game …
In addition if someone wants to adapt its sprites to the clone, why not
No I don’t see you as a guy who wants to sell something, I respect the fact that you want to improve your development skills, I just claim that either a developer agrees with the licensing terms of an artwork or some code and (s)he can use it, or (s)he mustn’t use it (even though I’d prefer everyone including big corporations to release their artworks under free sharing licenses), it’s very simple, isn’t it? It has nothing to do with commercial projects, selling anything, … You can simply rename your game “Maryo” to avoid trademark infringement and you can release the source code of your game under an open source / free software license without the copyrighted content so that someone else can reuse your stuff, it’s an excellent idea.