Copyrights

[kevglass]

Yeah, I kinda think cloning a game completely and rolling it out as your puts you in a place where you might get asked to stop (though I doubt it would end up in sueing since the company would get pretty bad press for sueing some hobbiest who essentially is part of their target audience).

I do know for a fact though that at least a few games company don’t have huge issues with your using their older games resources (sprites etc) to build different types of games. Team 17 mentioned before would be a good example of thins type of thing - they’ve actually in the past been very positive about indie games of this type. As you say, the companies themselfs might well be rebuilding old game concepts into new casual games which makes good business sense - but with their evident artistic resources and the improvement in technology I’d expect them generally to create new art/sound/music for their new version.

Nintendo would be the biggest rip I think - a lot of hobby developers “borrow” some sprites from then now and again. How many zelda graphics based RPGs have I seen! I’m not sure I’ve ever heard of the big N even questioning it - let alone sending a cease letter - let alone sueing.

Whether it’s morally right to do it or not - entrirely different matter and enitrely subjective.

[Markus_Persson]

[quote=“woogley,post:7,topic:28810”]
Fortunately, you can’t own game ideas. =)
(At least not in the EU, and I hope it stays that way)

[woogley]

@Markus_Persson

Fortunately, you can’t own game ideas. =)
(At least not in the EU, and I hope it stays that way)

if anyone would try, it would be Microsoft

[Markus_Persson]

huh?

[fletchergames]

@woogley

@fletchergames

People who make games should, at least, respect all the hard work and effort that other people put into making games and not steal their work.

if any of you have made a version of tetris, you’re a thief and should go to prison for 25 years.

interestingly enough, i have never made tetris. but the rest of you are CRIMINALS!!

Although, I’ve never actually made a version of Tetris either, I don’t have a problem with that. Being inspired by a game to make a similar one isn’t a problem to me, but actually using someone else’s resources without permission is bad.

If I were to make a game like Tetris, I would make it similar to Tetris but not identical. Otherwise, what’s the point?

[admin1]

So, I will offer an opinion here. But Blah*3 is right, a lot of times you (if you have NDA’s and what not in place) can only speak in the most general of terms when trying to discuss proof points. Doubly so for a publically traded company. Ok, so the opinion.

I think what Woogley is getting at is the silliness of a large company suing over an amature game if the programmer uses said company’s assets for personal use. No money is exchanging hands, and no one is profiting from it, so where is the harm? This is the same exact reasoning that is used in the emulation community, the music trading communities, etc. While you can rationalize it all you want, and I agree that assets used in most “community” settings should flatter companies rather than provoke them, using assets in a manner the author did not intend, without their permission, is at the very least a copyright violation. The same sort of thing goes for sites that publish the lyrics to songs and tabs for guitar players. Copyright violation is an actionable offense in the US. Just because someone has not sued you over it yet doesn’t mean they can’t or won’t.

Again, try to rationalize it all you want, it’s still illegal in the US and all of the complaining and posturing about it won’t change that fact. Period.

As for gameplay, you can’t hold a copyright on game theory, mechanics, etc. You can, however, hold rights to presentation, art, music, and even patents on gameplay within a particular environment. The Crazy Taxi vs. Simpsons Road Rage would not have been possible if not for the US patent that Sega was awarded covering driving games with training and assist modes
(http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6652376.PN.&OS=PN/6652376&RS=PN/6652376)

At the same time, id Software is not dragging Bungie into court over the space marine shooter. Why? Again, you can’t own a concept, just the particular application of said concept.

As for copying things like Tetris, that game was inspired by a game called Pentomino (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentomino), so further variations on the gameplay would be extremely difficult to sue for. The only thing that was ever sued over in the infamous Tetris battles of the early 90’s was the licensed version of the game called “Tetris”.

-Chris

[blahblahblahh]

Just noticed, in passnig (lookijng at something else), that Tom Sloper has a FAQ on this:

http://www.sloperama.com/advice/faq61.htm

[thijs]

[quote]As for copying things like Tetris, that game was inspired by a game called Pentomino (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentomino), so further variations on the gameplay would be extremely difficult to sue for. The only thing that was ever sued over in the infamous Tetris battles of the early 90’s was the licensed version of the game called “Tetris”.
[/quote]
The Tetris company has been known for threatning many indie developers in the past, even ones that didnt offer it for money but just as hobby projects :
http://forums.indiegamer.com/showthread.php?t=7513&highlight=lawsuit
http://www.abednarz.net/tetris.html

It never came to a court trial though. Luckily Sega lost the simpsons road rage case, as it would have set an example for other big publishers to take action.

Also there was an interesting article on gamasutra not so long ago:

Gamasutra - The Art & Business of Making Games

[admin1]

@thijs

[quote]As for copying things like Tetris, that game was inspired by a game called Pentomino (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentomino), so further variations on the gameplay would be extremely difficult to sue for. The only thing that was ever sued over in the infamous Tetris battles of the early 90’s was the licensed version of the game called “Tetris”.

The Tetris company has been known for threatning many indie developers in the past, even ones that didnt offer it for money but just as hobby projects :

Tetris Cloners - Beware

http://www.abednarz.net/tetris.html
[/quote]
Right, I should have said that the only lawsuits, AFAIK, that have ever been won have been around the original licensing. As well, the thread on Indiegamer discusses being sued over copyright of the name, not the mechanics.

-Chris

[erikd]

I seem to remember that Magnavox/Philips were sued by Atari over their Pac-Man clone called “K.C. Munchkin” and Magnavox/Philips were eventually ordered to stop selling it (which they did). This was purely because Atari felt it was too close to Pac-Man, even though K.C. Munchkin differed in quite a lot of important points from the original Pac Man.

[admin1]

@erikd

I seem to remember that Magnavox/Philips were sued by Atari over their Pac-Man clone called “K.C. Munchkin” and Magnavox/Philips were eventually ordered to stop selling it (which they did). This was purely because Atari felt it was too close to Pac-Man, even though K.C. Munchkin differed in quite a lot of important points from the original Pac Man.

Ok, so compare that to LadyBug by Universal. Maze game, dot eating, power-ups, etc. However, K.C. Munchkin infringed on the character design of Pac-Man: round character, chomping mouth, aliens that kind of had the same basic shape as the ghosts, etc. Magnavox was sued, Universal was not. Can’t copyright/protect mechanics, just content.

-Chris