Copyright Issues - Who is an expert at this stuff ? ^^

General Discussions
#1

i have a couple of questions

premise is: i want to spread my game as far as possible, meaning downloads and DVD boxes. but nothing commercial, the game will be 100% free

  • is there a copyright “time span” for games and therefore the graphics contaned within that product ? there has to be, right ?

  • if this time expires can I use the ressources / sprites freely in my own game ?

  • is it ILLEGAL to “distribute” or “publish” a game containing copyrighted material even if its not for commercial purposes and free

  • if so, is it really bad, or is it one of the thinks that are illegal per law, but no gaming company would ever sue a indie game developer because he used a small couple of copyrighted material

  • if I “change” ressources… what does it make them
    example here:

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/7845/spritechange.png

is it still copyrighted or is it mine now ? I mean at some point of changing obviously it would have anything with the original in common anymore ?

im asking all this because im not that good with graphics, but since I have a vision and what to create a game, I have to find some sort of alternatives

#2

Why should there be a time span? If someone develops a game, it’s his own property. Selling this game is selling the permission to play this copy of the game. So using graphics or other assets is not permitted by the author.

There is the term Abandonware which basically describes software/games which can’t be bought anymore or which don’t have a clear owner. But even in this case you are not allowed to use even parts of it.

I’m not complete sure how it’s handled if you change the graphics. I don’t think it’s allowed as long as you can recognize parts the used picture.

The only solution I know is to ask the owner for a permission to use his graphics.

#3

AFAIK, copyrights just like patents have a time span and have to be renewed. If not they expire.

ya and even if: what about reality ? Did a game company ever sue an indie game developer because of a non-commercial indie game ?

#4

http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=485134

#5

Here in the UK copyright is an automatic right, so if you create the art, you automatically own the copyright.

As for time span on how long they last, its pretty long, typically they last the whole of the authors life + 70 years after they die.
But once the time span expires you are free to use it (provided you live that long :slight_smile: )

if you do decided to use it the owner of the copyright my sue you for any loss they have suffered or profit you have made and may get an injunction to stop your from using the work again.

Changing the work (however much you may change it) doesn’t get rid of the copyright, your still using their work.

#6

Ok, that helped a lot.

Well from my perspective, reading this: http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

I can absolutely mark this as “fair use”. I am a student of computer science, I want to become a Game Designer, hence I can absolutely mark this usage as fair use in terms of research and education. And also for “valuable social purposes”.

I mean… of course: the question “will they sue me?” is ridiculous to begin with since a game company would never discourage indie game makers and my game hasn’t even anything to do with those other games. So yeah.

But of course I would like to hear other opinions and even experiences, I mean most of you create games that are more or less copyright infringement somehow…

#7

The US copyright law last the lifetime of the author plus 75 years.
Yes you can use material for educational purposes, but if you take a copyrighted image and put in a game that you working on for “educational purposes”, and then go an distribute the product, even if you don’t get any money. You are infringing on the copyright. If the owner of the copyrighted material finds out, that can come after you.
Disney is very big on copyrights. They have lawyers that do nothing but look through magizines and publications for copyright infringment.
The reason for such aggressive protection, that if a copyrighted item is not defended and widely used, it becomes public domain. Which anybody can use it.

#8

I’m no expert so I just posted the link, but at the mention of opinion… ;D

I don’t see what you’re mentioning as fair use as described in the article.
Will the owner take action? Unlikely, if your game is very minor. But it absolutely does happen.

To me, though, it’s about respect. If someone puts their time, effort and inspiration into something then they shoud get the credit for that. If they give it away freely then all credit to them. If not we should respect that. There is a good fair bit of content out there that is freely available for use. There is also a lot of stuff out there you can license for reasonable money. Sometimes it can be hard to find just what you need but you know what… make the effort.

Taking someone else’s work, even if it’s owned by a big company without their permission demeans your own work in my opinion.

Find artists who can do what you need. Show off their work with permission. Work with them or pay for the work. It’s better for you and them in the long run.

#9

Careful here. The Tetris Co. has been suing people for quite a long time, even people just giving away games, claiming copyright infringement even where no copyright infringement has happened (a game idea itself is not copyrightable, only the specific implementation; trademark is a whole other can of worms which I won’t get into now but which did enter into the Tetris cases a bit).

See above - there’s a big difference between using a game idea and using the actual assets from a game, the first is perfectly legal but the second is not, pretty much any way you cut it, regardless of whether its for commercial purposes or if you modify the graphics beforehand, and you can absolutely be sued for it.

#10

ya I was talking about things like MegaMan 4k

#11

I entered this territory and asked a similar question on this forum a while ago. It seemed what I was considering (creating an image from a photo of an existing work) gets into grey-area territory (imagine taking a photo of a building, using that as your base image and then creating a lovely landscaped piece of artwork in photoshop)…

In the end I contacted the original owner - pretty large company - and they took the liberty to respond and ask for more information.

Lots of details later, I asked if it was ok to use my creations using a base image of a photo of their product and they went very very silent.

Not gonna-touch-that-with-a-barge-pole kinda silent.

So … I dropped it. Pretty sure if I’d continued and distributed something they would have been on me with a lawyer and a shiny briefcase in no time.

:slight_smile:

#12

The ridiculously long copyright period in the US was actually largely caused by Disney, among others. According to older copyright laws, Mickey Mouse (and crew) should have become public domain soon after Walt Disney died, but Disney’s lawyers keep bringing this to court and getting the entire country’s laws changed for their own purposes. This is despicable, in my opinion, and causes a lot of content that would otherwise be useful or helpful to the public to instead be shackled under copyright law. In my opinion, a lot of things (software being chief among them) should have a copyright period of only around 5-10 years or so, then immediately all source code becomes public domain. Why? Because no software has a lifetime that long (without subsequent updates, which would of course be under their own copyrights) and the obscenely high amount of “reinventing the wheel” that happens because every game shop has their own physics engine, rendering engine, etc. is just stupid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1909 - 28 years, extendable to 56 years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Copyright_Act_of_1976 - 75 years or life of the author plus 50 years

[quote]Prior to the 1976 copyright act, many copyrighted literary works, movies and fictional characters were soon to pass into the public domain due to their 56 year maximum copyright terms. Some of these copyrighted items remained quite profitable for their copyright owners, including several characters owned by the Walt Disney Company. With the passage of the 1976 copyright act, early animated short films featuring Mickey Mouse such as Steamboat Willie and Plane Crazy would not enter the public domain until 2000 at the earliest due to their new 75 year copyright terms. Mickey Mouse and other characters also have protection as trademarks. In several countries (e.g. in Russia, where the Berne convention was not applied retroactively[dated info]) Mickey Mouse and all other copyrighted works created before 1970 are now regarded as being in the public domain.
[/quote]

[quote]In addition to Disney (whose extensive lobbying efforts inspired the nickname “The Mickey Mouse Protection Act”), California congresswoman Mary Bono (Sonny Bono’s widow and Congressional successor) and the estate of composer George Gershwin supported the act.
[/quote]
It’s one reason (among many) that I hate Disney.

#13

Copyright isn’t too bad. It exists to protect the original author.
If it ain’t yours, get permission or don’t go near it.

It’s patents you need to worry about, and the patent office that’ll stamp any old crap for a quick buck, and the associated lawyers for the same reason.

#14

Why should it still be yours 50 years after you’re dead? Also, why should it still be yours if it’s not going to make you any profit personally, but if made public domain could make a massive profit for everyone else (in the case of software)?

But yes, patents are more dangerous in terms of treading on your liberties. People will patent almost anything.

#15

This is only true for trademarks and patents, not copyrights.

#16

Actually, that’s not even necessary for patents, it’s only trademarks that must be aggressively protected - there’s a tried and true tradition of not mentioning a patent even if you see a competitor infringing upon it until they make enough money off of it to hit them with a real major lawsuit and settle for millions.

Scummy? Yup. But totally legal.

#17

ya well actually, to be specific, the main core of sprites i am worried about are owned by “typemoon” who are developing a small couple of anime-style games

typemoon seems pretty nice towards this issue since there are a lot of cases in which their stuff is used and they not it, and are ok with it ( character sprites -> MUGEN, for people who know that )

So im not pretty sure they would tolerate it aswell.

but of course I would use some sprites from old SNES games and stuff, but if its really this serious

#18

but it really seems to happen sometimes : http://www.opcoder.com/projects/chrono/

EDIT: looking at the bright side, this guys got a letter from square enix
http://crimsonechoes.com/letter.pdf

who else can say that =)

#19

It’s probably still yours 50-75 years after you’re dead for two reasons:

  1. protect people from getting ‘bumped off’ just to get at their products
  2. allow the next generation of that person’s family to reap some benefit, after inheriting their estate, and not have their inheritance torn away from them.
#20

Bright side? Read the letter. If any part of their code/game is ever distributed, and it does not state that they have to be the ones distributing it, then SE will pursue legal action. So, if someone acquires any of their work and distributes it on their own, then the Crimson Echos team is still liable and could be sued.

This is nothing to be taken lightly.

As for use in educational purposes, that ends the second you open it up for distribution.

Now, there are a ton of games out there that hit the indy scene that are never pursued because the companies don’t view them as a threat. that does not mean, however, that they won’t pursue. In fact, anyone that uses works, under copyright protection, without the express permission from the rights holder is leaving themselves open to possible litigation.

If I were you, I would go look at a model site like TurboSquid or for works under Creative Commons licenses or contact the content holder and ask for permission to use their stuff in your education project to avoid any trouble.

My .02

EDIT: Also, in your OP, just changing bits of the asset is not enough. You can create art that is inspired or is a derivative of an existing work as long as you produce it yourself. Taking an existing asset, and you acquiring it is already a violation of copyright law unless you were given access to it by the rights holder, does not get you clear of the law.