Copyright of Abandonware

General Discussions
#1

Suppose there is a game, which was developed, like 15 years ago 8 (16 bit era); and today the developer aswell as the publisher are long gone because of bankruptcy.

Reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonware

[quote]Definitions of “abandoned” vary; generally it refers to a product that is no longer available for legal purchase, over the age where the product creator feels an obligation to continue to support it, or where Operating Systems or hardware platforms have evolved to such a degree that the creator feels continued support cannot be financially justified. Software companies and manufacturers may change their names, go bankrupt, enter into mergers, or cease to exist for a variety of reasons. When this happens, product rights are usually transferred to another company that may elect not to sell or support products acquired.

In most cases, software classed as abandonware is not in the public domain, as it has never had its original copyright revoked and some company still owns exclusive rights. Therefore, downloading such software is usually considered copyright infringement, though in practice copyright holders rarely enforce their abandonware copyrights.
[/quote]
The fact that, in this case some Company still holds the copyrights somewhere, seems highly unlikely to me. There is no existence of any company today, that was ever entitled to those copyright. They all died.

So if I use assets, sound, music whatnot, in my (non profit - not that it matters) game, who’s gonna sue me ?

#2

I think it’s important to note that while nobody may know who IS entitled to the copyright, you know YOU are not :wink:

It’s Abandonware only until it becomes financially viable for someone to expend effort (and money) tracing who owns the copyright,
and subsequently enforces the copyright with intent to screw you out of whatever profit you have made from the infringement.

#3

Just so you know:

“With the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, these works are granted copyright protection for a term ending 70 years after the death of the author. If the work was a work for hire (e.g., those created by a corporation) then copyright persists for 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever is shorter.”

This is from the wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law.

So no video game has gone into the public domain from having the copyright expire. Some games have been purposely made public domain by their authors.

No doubt, there are some games that no one cares about (abandonware), which no one will prosecute you for stealing. However, someone out there still owns the copyright. When a company disappears, the intellectual property probably goes somewhere, though there might be some specific stealable game out there.

Since games are obsolete in two years, there’s very little chance that you’ll find a truly good game that you can safely pirate.

If you want to download some abandonware games, you are most likely breaking the law, though you might never be prosecuted.

#4

I have a friend who is spending considerable time and effort tracking down the copyright of his favorite MS-DOS game, which is now somewhere around 20 years old. Nobody really knows who owns the copyright, but he’s not going to touch it until he is actually the owner. You basically need to go down a rabbit hole and follow tiny leads until you finally know.

Otherwise that one person on the planet who does know who has the copyright may just see your game and then sue your pants off.

#5

So there really important question is the other way around:
How do I gain the copyright of stuff I actually created? Obviously, that happens kinda automatically.
But without a company, doing a non profit game, how can I prove later on that I created this stuff, so that I could sue or whatever, in case of someone stealing it.

#6

you show proof that you created and/or published before someone else.

#7

Copyright is automatic, but if you want something more formal, you can register your work. How you do this depends on your country.

Bear in mind that actually registering it doesn’t actually do anything if you’ve not got the money/time/inclination to actually bring a court case against someone (ie. for most of us here, it’s pointless).

#8

Rather easily, if you have the source code.

Remember that game ideas are not copyrightable. Graphic images are, and binary object code. Source code is also copyright but rarely escapes into the public domain anyway unless you release it.

Cas :slight_smile:

#9

Yet peculiarly, font glyph bitmaps are not - even if they are generated from a copyrighted scalable font.
Or at least that seems to be the case in America…

#10

I don’t know. Stealing someone elses work… well, that might prove to be a can of worms, unless you’re aiming for just 1 player, yourself, for the game.

Aren’t we all striving to make very successful and popular games? If that happens, and you’re using art from some old game without permission… better go hire yourself a lawyer.

But on a development note, using some high detailed pixel art that someone else made means you won’t be able to mimic it, because you weren’t skilled enough to create it in the first place. Therefor, you’ll be locked into the few sprites you stole, unable to recreate, mimic, similar style art. I’d rather create my own art, which allows me to create new units whenever I want. It also allows me to keep everything consistent, the menu, interface, and all other graphics. Would surely look weird if you had very high quality unit sprites, and the menu system look or hud is horrible, like meat in a cake. (unless you’re recreating a old game using all it’s graphics).

#11

Can we drop the “stealing” copyright thing, it’s no more valid an analogy than “murdering” the authors exclusive right to distribute. The only reason people use it is because they want it to sound more serious (criminal) than it actually is. Every single creative work in existence today is in some way copied from what came before it. Building on the works of others is about the most natural and productive way for a society progress. Now that copying has become so easy the commercial implications of it mean copying has suddenly gone from being a form of flattery to as bad as stealing - or so the people who have reaped the proceeds of artificial scarcity are trying to have us believe.

As far as abandonware goes, if you played a game in your youth you loved that isn’t available today and would like to share with others, go for it! The worst that could happen if you are massively successful (we should all be so lucky) is a cease and desist letter and that is less likely than a lawsuit because you used a patented for loop.

#12

Whether you agree with the concept of copyright or not, according to copyright laws it is an offence much akin to stealing. The fact that it’s so easy nowadays doesn’t make it right. You might see it as flattery, but I bet authors will argue that flattery doesn’t pay bills, and that is what copyright laws protect. In my opinion that is a good thing.
I also disagree with you that creative work ‘is in some way copied from what came before it’. Look up the word ‘copying’, it means duplicating, not deriving or building on existing ideas. It’s an important distinction to make.
Duplicating is hardly creative work.

#13

I had to withdraw my Paradroid remake some years ago because somebody still holds the rights on that game… :’(

#14

All you had to do was change the name!

Cas :slight_smile:

#15

Yes and that was damn shame! (it was awesome)
In my opinion that was a proper tribute, and not a copy. You might have gotten away with it though if you just changed the name?

#16

Parabot.
Pararobo.
AndroidTrooper.
POOPERSCOOPER

#17

That, and maybe some graphics and sounds that i was using from the orignal version. However, i made the game for fun…running into that legal stuff wasn’t that much fun to me, so i decided to drop it. Other remakes are still around except for an iPhone version that obviously ran into similar problems…

#18

[quote]Whether you agree with the concept of copyright or not, according to copyright laws it is an offence much akin to stealing. The fact that it’s so easy nowadays doesn’t make it right. You might see it as flattery, but I bet authors will argue that flattery doesn’t pay bills, and that is what copyright laws protect. In my opinion that is a good thing.
I also disagree with you that creative work ‘is in some way copied from what came before it’. Look up the word ‘copying’, it means duplicating, not deriving or building on existing ideas. It’s an important distinction to make.
Duplicating is hardly creative work.
[/quote]
I never said copyright infringement was not wrong, simply that it is not similar enough to theft to warrant the interchangeability of the terms. When I hear someone described as having infringed on copyright after robbing a bank I will accept theft as equivalent to copyright. Copyright is so different from theft that not only are they separate laws, they are not even in the same class of law (civil vs criminal).
Also I totally agree that derived work that involves a creative aspect is worlds away from people downloading mp3’s but they are still both forms of copyright infringement and arguing that deriving is not the same as copying aspects is pure semantics.

#19

Oh, I thought you were defending copyright infringement and were actually promoting it by saying that chances are low that you get into trouble. But I see that you probably have meant that only in the context of abandonware?

[quote]When I hear someone described as having infringed on copyright after robbing a bank I will accept theft as equivalent to copyright. Copyright is so different from theft that not only are they separate laws, they are not even in the same class of law (civil vs criminal).
[/quote]
Although it’s usually a civil matter, copyright infringement can result in criminal prosecution. It’s actually increasingly common that copyright laws are enforced by criminal prosecution, especially when it’s related to file sharing and such.
You’re right copyright is not the same as theft, but I can understand that from the author’s p.o.v. it doesn’t really feel that different: Pirates ‘steal’ their means of income.

[quote]Also I totally agree that derived work that involves a creative aspect is worlds away from people downloading mp3’s but they are still both forms of copyright infringement and arguing that deriving is not the same as copying aspects is pure semantics.
[/quote]
Perhaps I used the word deriving wrongly. I meant just building on existing ideas. My point was that while you’re right that creative work almost always builds on existing ideas, this is not the same as copying someone else’s work. Copyright infringement is about copying, not about building on existing ideas.

#20

No! - That would be stealing the copy in the store = theft.
copying a product does not necessarily equate a loss of sale, but is, of course, illegal.