ya I actually go to TurboSquid a lot, but of course for 2D sprites characters there is nothing there.
well asking the owner, I will actually try that.
in any case that would stop my game, even if I have to draw every sprite myself D=
just wanted to point out:
I just found this
It s a mtroid fan game and its really popular on the internet so far, although its still in development and not final
http://www.yoyogames.com/games/launch/55685
[quote]Played 10670 times
[/quote]
The Wikipedia is not correct. See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.html
Ҥ 302. Duration of copyright: Works created on or after January 1, 1978
(a) In General. — Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists from its creation and, except as provided by the following subsections, endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author’s death.”
Copyright before January 1978 were secure for a length of time and can be renewed.
When thinking about Copyrights, think of it if you were the “author” and holder of the copyright, and the money you made from that was your only source of income. If you don’t make million or even thousands on it for years, you won’t be willing to just give up the Copyrights to it.
Here some information giving to photographers. http://www.pro-imaging.org/content/view/164/161/
Even if you did create new assets from scratch, you still have trademarks to watch out for - there’s pretty much no way around it, you can’t legally make a Mario game without getting a license from Nintendo, even if all the sprites are created from scratch. If it’s Mario, it belongs to Nintendo, and since that’s a trademark, they do have to enforce it aggressively or else they risk losing it.
well if its “Tony” and he is has a yellow suit, unlike marios red and luigis green and maybe would wear something else, than there would be no legal problem ? =P
If you looking for images to use, I would suggest doing a search for “royalty free” or “public domain” images. There should be a vast supply out there. Graphic Designers have been using “royalty free” clip art for decades. This goes for music as well. Video production houses have used “royalty free” music.
So, why don’t you just ask them? Explain the scope of your project and see if they agree.
I believe the trademarks would apply to the name ‘Mario’, not mario-inspired graphics. If I recall, that’s how the tetris trademark issues were applied - they went after people using a *-tris name, not after people making tetris clones (which is perfectly legal).
That’s why I stated a derivative or inspired work is ok. However, you still do need to make sure you don’t run afoul of resembling the original work too closely 
I’m pretty positive the actual likability of Mario is trademarked as well, but obviously you can do easy spinoffs and stay clear of trouble. Lots of games do this successfully.
Zelda
http://www.freewebs.com/kirbyscrib/young%20link.gif
Dark Cloud
http://www.geocities.com/ansellgames/ps2/darkcloud.jpg
Mickey Mouse
Mighty Mouse
http://www.jmorganmarketing.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/mighty-mouse.jpg
Same thing goes with the character names… you can be as similar as you want as long as you still keep it difficult for the trademark owner to sue you. Disney could certainly sue the creators of Mighty Mouse, but the characters are different enough that Disney might not win, and lawsuits cost a lot of money.
Tetris is in some ways a bad example anyways because The Tetris Co. has, in fact, threatened lawsuits against people making clones without any sort of connection to Tetris other than the gameplay, under the theory (completely unfounded, and explicitly contradicted by the copyright office: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html) that their gameplay is protected under copyright. If you search around you can probably find complaints about this - to my knowledge none have ever gone to court, the devs have always backed down before it got that far.
They’ve also gotten many clones (ones which IMO are on perfectly sound legal footing) removed from the iPhone by making similar claims of copyright and trademark infringement directly to Apple, even ones where the names were completely dissimilar.
Stuff like that is merely an abuse of the system; they know that no indie developer has the resources to fight a court battle with them, so they don’t risk actually being ruled against, even if the case is open and shut.
The valid things they’ve gone after people for tend to be trademark related - you can neither name your game anything resembling Tetris, or use the distinctive Tetris music, even though the music itself has been in the public domain for a century or more (they have a so-called “soundmark” on using that song behind that type of game).
Yes. The times quoted by most people are irrelevant if the copyright subsists in a company (work for hire). In that case I think it expires 120 years after creation in the US, probably something similar elsewhere.
[quote]- is it ILLEGAL to “distribute” or “publish” a game containing copyrighted material even if its not for commercial purposes and free
[/quote]
In English law, strictly, no: it’s a tort rather than an offence. However, that’s just quibbling over correct usage of words. It doesn’t mean you can’t and won’t be sued and lose the suit.
[quote]- if I “change” ressources… what does it make them
[/quote]
Derived works. Pace ChrisM, you need the copyright holder’s permission to create a derived work (again, in the strict sense of the term). There is a difference between derived works and inspiration.
[quote]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”.
[/quote]
No. Reproducing parts of the work in a paper about it is fair use for research and education. Ripping sprites from it to learn about development but never distribution your game might be, although IMO you’d need to be lucky in court. Ripping sprites from it and then putting the result on the Internet isn’t.
In addition, you should bear in mind that “fair use” (in the countries in which it exists) is a defence. It doesn’t stop you from being sued.
Armchair lawyer-ing is fun and all, but unless you’ve got 1. the time 2. the money and 3. the balls to actually fight it out in court against Large Company X then whether you’re legally ok is irrelevant.
Yeah, that’s a really good point. What becomes most important to remember is that if the company has anything to gain by suing you (i.e. you have significant capital) or anything to lose by not suing you (i.e. they won’t be able to gain as much capital), then you will be sued, and that’s that. The law doesn’t really come into it, profit is the rule of the game.