Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Fair Use And Game Mods? 131

Posted by Cliff from the what-can-and-can't-you-use dept.
brtb asks: "Rumors have been flying high on IRC that the popular Quake 3 mod "Bid for Power," based on DragonBallZ, was recently cease-and-desisted by Funimation and forced into selling out. I'm not speculating as to the validity of these rumors, but I'm sure the mod-making community (including myself) would want to hear from all the copyright experts out there in /. - even the IANAL ones - what possible legal problems can TV/game based mods get into, and are they avoidable? What's fair use in the way of names, images, characters, settings, etc.? Is there anything in particular that we should stay away from doing while developing mods?" Rumor this may be, but it raises an interesting question: what use is fair when it comes to character licenses, scenes and other such things that can result from parodies and game mods based on something seen on TV or at the theater? Update: 12/16 08:44 PM EDT:As expected, this is a rumor and nothing more. Bid for Power has not received a cease-and-decist order.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fair Use and Game Mods? More

Fair Use and Game Mods?

Comments Filter:
  • Who's the "you" that you are referring to?? Nobody's said anything about id's IP. The people that are rumored to be trying to stop this are the people who make Dragonball Z.
  • I think that would be defensible in court. Sadly, even a successful defense is costly. That is how the threat of litigation works.
  • It might have been funnier if it hadn't been stated 50million times on Slashdot before, and better too. It was funnier when it included descriptions of characters posturing over how much of an exact percentage of their total powerlevel they were currently using to "just play with you."
  • Heh heh- I'll "feel their familys!"

  • No money, no lawsuit (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    As a general rule of thumb, if you aren't making money, they don't have a case. If the owner of copyrighted material can prove that you use their material to promote or sell a product, then they have a case. This doesn't stop them from threatening or attempting to sue though.
  • Are you kidding? Common sense has no place in DragonballZ...
  • It seems from what everyone else is saying that you should not release said mods in the US but on this side of the pond I could release them for you (as long as they did not contain any of the original). Although we have strong copyright laws they refer only to the right to copy. It is perfectly OK to product add ons to other peoples work.
  • Oh, yes, of course they're copyrighted. Any print, film, blahblahblah, is copyrighted whether registered or not. Of course Disney has plenty of registrations.
  • There are TONS of DBZ games in Japan, but only one and a half in the US that I'm aware of.

    The one is Dragon Ball GT Final Bout, a 3-D fighting game on the Playstation. Of course, it kind of failed because Dragon Ball GT (still) isn't out in the US, and it sucked. I know from experience.

    I'm not even exactly sure when it came out, but I guess Funimation would have had to license it.

    If you're wondering, the half is Dragon Power, an NES adventure game that's been modified to take out all Dragon Ball references, kind of like Super Mario 2 was transformed from its original form. Kind of silly...

    It's too bad though. I was going to buy Quake 3 once Bid For Power came out. Not anymore.
  • The real question is if this is even a case of fair use. They should just do a 'clean room' implementation of all the skins and models and sounds and weapons, and no one could say a thing. :)

  • What's fair use in the way of names, images, characters, settings, etc.?

    I've heard many times that characters (e.g. Mickey Mouse, Batman, etc) are copyrighted. Not trademarked, but copyrighted. When you look at copyright law, this just doesn't make sense. And yet the belief is pretty widely held and I'm pretty sure court cases have been won.

    It's not in the law written by the legislators, so it must be in some judge's decisions somewhere. It is unfortunate that judges have this level of power, because judicial decisions are much less accessible to the public. I can look up what laws congress has passed pretty easily, but don't know where to begin to find out what laws judges have passed. Well, actually I do know where to begin: hire a specialist who knows how (i.e. lawyer).

    Obscuring laws from public view is a Bad Thing, for reasons that I think (hope?) are pretty obvious.


    ---
  • I remember an interview with Carmack where he said something along the lines of "I think that IP is more important for the artwork included in a game, than the actual code." I think the same idea can apply to mods that uses other people's artwork. Can anyone find a link to this?

  • Fair Use doesn't cover mods (Score:5)

    by Quarters ( 18322 ) on Thursday December 14, 2000 @09:38AM (#558860)
    Fair use allows you to use, in part or in whole, copyrighted works for personal and/or educational purposes. It does not cover wide-spread distribution (for free or for profit) of copyrighted materials--obviously.

    The owners of the DragonballZ license are in their right to ask that development of this mod stop and all distribution be cancelled. The mod has the potential of diluting the strength of the DBZ brand and hindering sales of a DBZ game if/when one comes out.

    To answer your question of, "Is there anything that can be done with fair use so that mods created on licensed materials can survive?"--no, there isn't.

  • I now declare that I have copyright on my life. No person, company or other entity may take any part of my life and use it for any purpose without my express permission.

    "My life" includes, but is not limited to:

    My physical appearance.

    My personality.

    Events that have occurred in my life or will occur in the future.

    Any person who I have contact with during the my lifetime.

    Anyone found breaking this contract will be prosecuted under the full extents of the law.

    I'm sure this is how people feel who have had movies/TV shows made about them without their permisison. There have been a rash of these lately (my mind has gone blank as to the names of these, which I suppose invalidates my whole comment!), where the person involved has sued to get a percentage of revenue. In all cases they didn't get a penny, because their lives are classed as being in the public domain. However, whenever someone tries to imitate a movie/TV show the lawyers come from everywhere, unless the copy is a parody, which, in some cases, is deemed acceptable.

    Just another example of where companies have more rights than individuals!

  • Perhaps he was interested in royalties from the to-be-released and oft-anticipated "Hellmouth Team Tournament" series, pitting pimply, maladjusted malcontents against unarmed, God-fearing jocks and shrieking, well-endowed cheerleaders.
  • Parody is one aspect of Fair Use that can get a fair degree of latitude. Hence editorial cartoons can have copyrighted characters all they want. Games can be similar: I remember quite vividly a Simpsons mod for the original Doom that was downright hilarious. You were Homer, armour was beer (in singles, six-packs, or kegs) and food was donuts (either singly or in boxes. Sounds were clips from the show, all characters were present, and I never could play without laughing. A pretty clear parody. I don't know if this particular mod falls into the parody category, though. Just food for thought.

  • A little OT, but there are a bunch of DBZ games. There was an arcade game that I'm still trying to get ahold of, and then of course there are the Super Famicom/SNES (and others) fighting games. Damn, those are fun. Some people just try powering up to max and doing fireballs over and over, but all you have to do has deflect or power-block them, and you'd end up with considerably more reserve energy than your opponent, at which point you could wail on them as much as you like. =)

    < tofuhead >

  • And you can't use your own drawings of Animaniacs cartoon characters any more than you can use wooden hand-carved renditions of Disney's mermaid as a fish restaurant logo...not without permission.

    I have a tattoo of Disney's mermaid [utwente.nl] on my right leg, and I had it tattoo-ed without permission. I even published it on the net, and I'm still waiting for the cease-and-desist letter...

    - Iwan
  • This started in the late Doom / early Quake 1 days. After the extremely well done Aliens TC for Doom, there were many people that wanted a similar work for Quake. Several projects were started and Fox abrubtly squashed them. Understandable since they had their Aliens vs. Predator in the works. They didn't want a free similar project out there to divert from their potential revinue on their copyrighted material.

    As much as people bitched and complained about this the first time around, you'll notice that the law is still very much in favor of the company.

    Generate your own idea and don't rely on the popularity of somebody elses product to get your's off the ground. People nowadays are too name concious anyway. Let's work for content concious. Mmmkay?
  • Maybe if some of the mod makers fused with lawyers and trained hard in 100x gravity they could gain a higher power level than Funimation and defeat them in a epic battle over the fate of earth!
  • I dont know how many of u remeber this but there was an incedent similar to this that happened about 4 years ago with Quake 1. The "aliens" mod had a beta released and soon after that Fox sent the developers a "cease and desist" letter. This was actually the first case(at least that i can remember, and i was playing fps's and all thier mods since Wolf3d) where the actual copyright holder interfered with a gaming mod. It was big news back then and when a mod got discontinued by these similar means, the mod was therefore known as "foxxed".

  • Mods have been "Foxed"[1] for quite some time now. This is nothing new, and it's certainly not illegal (see other comments).

    [1] The term "Foxed" came into being when the old Alien Quake mod for Quake 1 was cease-and-desisted by Fox, prior to Fox publishing their own Aliens-based FPS, namely Aliens Vs. Predator.

  • As far as I know there is nothing stopping someone from making a mod based on someones elses movie/TV show/cartoon/whatever, however, they can't sell said mod without getting the permission of the original creator (or liscencee thereof).

    I.e., I could make a Animaniacs or Freakazoid mod for Q3, and pass it around to a few friends without getting in trouble. It could even (probably) be hosted somewhere for download. But the minute I start asking for money, Warner Bros. can just in with the lawyers...
  • The problem is that you can't just appropriate someone's work for your own even if you're not making a profit. The company owns the DragonBallZ characters, so you cannot use them in your own game. You could license the characters from them if you wished to. It's not fair use when you're appropriating their characters for your game, because you *are* depriving them of profit if they were ever to release a game themselves using their *own* characters.
  • IIRC, the Aliens TC for Doom met the same fate. A shame, too. I managed to grab it before it was Foxed, and pummeling the alien Queen with a power loader was much fun.

    There's also the issue of existing games based on the franchise in question. There was a DBZ fighting game on Ye Olde Nintendo. And there could possibly be others that were only released in Japan. Aliens TC may have been Foxed because of Alien vs. Predator, which was originally an Atari Jaguar title. (The only good Jaguar title, IIRC.) The PC version was a remake of the Jaguar game by the same studio. In either case, the license holder can claim that they're not just protecting their own intellectual property, but also existing licensees' rights to that IP.

    We're not scare-mongering/This is really happening - Radiohead

  • Definitely Not (Score:5)

    by SEWilco ( 27983 ) on Thursday December 14, 2000 @09:43AM (#558873) Journal
    No, you can make whatever you want for your personal enjoyment. You're infringing on copyright as soon as you let a copy out of your personal computers or an image from it hits someone else's eyeballs.

    Warner Brothers has the copyright on the Animaniacs cartoon characters. Any representation of them is protected, except for "fair use". Just because you produce something which WB has not does not let you use their images. And you can't use your own drawings of Animaniacs cartoon characters any more than you can use wooden hand-carved renditions of Disney's mermaid as a fish restaurant logo...not without permission.

    Of course, if you happen to independently create cartoon characters which happen to bear a coincidental similarity to Animaniacs then it's a different matter. But juries and art critics get to decide such issues, so an artist unlucky enough to have created similar creatures would probably try to create different ones instead.

  • Did you even read the summary at the top of the page? It is FUMINATION, the owners of DragonballZ who are doing this, not ID. They have every right to stop people from infringing on their copyright. Damn crack smoking moderators, pay attention.
  • I quote Boyd Rice here (taken from an interview by Chad Hensley [gothic.net]:

    What was it like in Denver right after the Columbine shootings?

    Right after they occurred, I left the country as soon as possible. I can totally empathize with those guys. If I had a dollar for every time I wanted to go in and murder all of the football players at my high school, I'd be a rich man. The thing is, I didn't have, like, a support group. I was a loner. I didn't have thirteen people saying, "Yeah. That's a good idea. I think you should do that." I was always an outsider. I never tried to be but that's how it was. I can go to any town and walk into any place and everybody just looks at me. They know I'm not one of them, even if I'm dressed normally. That's been the case my entire life, for whatever reason.

    I would agree with what he said. Yes it is a shame to you that those people died. I should feel for their familys. However I dont. I also dont see any reason at all that they shouldnt be used as a game mod. Perhaps it will create an outlet for people that might want to do it and as a result: they wont. Perhaps it will teach people how to do it right. Perhaps if they werent so mean to each other things wouldnt need to happen like this. How about all the people that have commited suicide because of people like those killed at Columbine? Assholes are all over the planet. Dont forget some of those people wernt the nicest people around. As a nerd and an all around outcast, but still smart one none the less, I see why its not productive to kill them. I also see why someone might do it. If I was going nowhere and fast, I would do the planet a favor. Human life is over valued, clearly theirs more than anyone else in this thread.
    "Save the planet and kill yourself."

  • meta (Score:5)

    by gunner800 ( 142959 ) on Thursday December 14, 2000 @09:48AM (#558876) Homepage
    Please do not encourage the amateur lawyers to voice their uninformed opinions. If you want timely (and good) legal advice, might I suggest an interview rather than "Ask Slashdot"? History has shown that we mostly don't really know what we're talking about. Those who do have a clue are drowned out by the rest of us.

    Yes, this is offtopic. But where else can I voice a legitimate concern? I doubt "Ask Slashdot: What's Wrong with Slashdot?" would get posted. So please wait a little while before moderating down.


    My mom is not a Karma whore!

  • Someone posted something about mods making a 'better version of the game' keep people from buying newer versions. I wasn't aware that there was a DragonballZ game, so I assumed he was referring to Q3.

  • Fair Use thumbnail. (Score:5)

    by dkh2 ( 29130 ) <`moc.hctIstiTyMoDyhW' `ta' `2hkd'> on Thursday December 14, 2000 @09:50AM (#558878) Homepage
    When you work in a university library this question comes up a lot. Really, on a weekly basis sometimes. The entire concept of fair use is designed to facilitate the academic community (both in the university setting and for private/corporate research) for the advancement of science, knowledge, the human condition, what have you... without infringing unduly on the intellectual and other rights of the owner of a particular piece of intellectual property.

    Unless stated specifically, the images, names, phrases, story lines, yadda yadda yadda of pretty much anything are considered to be intellectual properties. Any unauthorized use of those properties is itself justification for cease and decist orders and/or other legal action by or on behalf of the rightful owner. That said, unless you're using these images, names, yadda yadda... for research purposes only, your usage probably doesn't meet the criterion for "fair use."

    As a starting resource for our faculty, staff, and students our library website includes the following information:

    FAIR USE, 17 U.S.C 107 [loc.gov]
    Fair Use is a limitation that allows reproduction in certain instances, without securing the copyright owner's permission. Fair Use acknowledges the importance of educational use of copyrighted works, by allowing reproduction for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, and research.

    Materials that meet the four factors of fair use may be used without obtaining copyright permission.

    Four factors must be examined on a case-by-case basis, weighed, and balanced to determine whether copying represents fair use. The courts have maintained that no single factor is determinative. The four factors are:

    • Purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
    • Nature of the copyrighted work
    • Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
    • Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
    The fact that a work is unpublished does not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all of the above factors. [17 U.S.C. 107 (1994) [loc.gov]].

    Code commentary is like sex.
    If it's good, it's VERY good.

  • Seen this before many a time. I remember an unreal mod that was started which was going to be based on southpark, or maybe the simpsons. One C&D letter later, and the project team folded their tent and replaced their webpage with a copy of the letter and a short note saying goodbye - their project had been "foxed".

    They weren't a commercial company, just a bunch of fans who thought they could make something cool. The IP owners found out, sent a lawyer-letter and left the team with little choice but to throw up their hands and walk away. Afterall, a bunch of volunteers aren't going to hire a lwayer so they can keep their non-profit project going.

    I remembered another one that was in the works to do a wolfenstein mod and id sent a letter. They weren't dicks about it, asked nicely for them to shut it down. From what I remember, id claimed they had to defend their copyright in each and every instance they learned of, regardless of how non-threatening it was or they risked losing a legal leg to stand on if some commercial entity were to start selling shrink-wrap games based on id's IP.

    What I wondered at the time was, can id license the wolf-3d stuff to this mod team for, say $1 and thus get around this supposed legal pitfal and still support the community?
  • All those stickers on the back of the trucks that have Calvin urinating on company "X's" logo are not actually Calvin.

    My favorites are the two racer Danny Sullivan has on the window of his pickup; Calvin is pissing on the numbers 3 and 24.

    -
  • What did you have in mind -- letting people shoot letters out of an image of the Nethack license? Sounds like that would be illegal indeed.

    "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license, but changing it is not allowed."


  • Where is the line drawn?
    You might want to look at the following provisions of the United States Code.

    17 U.S.C. Sec. 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works, provides:
    Subject to sections 107 through 121, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:


    (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

    (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

    (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

    (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

    (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

    (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
    See: 17 U.S.C. Sec. 106 [cornell.edu].

    17 U.S.C. Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use, provides:
    Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -


    (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

    (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

    (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

    (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

    The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
    See: 17 U.S.C. Sec. 107 [cornell.edu].

    You also have to look at trademark and unfair competition law.

  • There's another area where this sort of thing creeps up from time to time: fanfiction.

    Fanfiction, by definition, uses characters that aren't the author's. Now and again, we see companies try to stamp out fanfiction sites, but we also occasionally see a company endorse or create their own site for fanfiction of their property.

    It's the first thing I thought when I saw this article - the DBZ mod is nothing more than a DBZ fanfic, albeit interactive.

    Similarly, at one point, I'd considered writing a star wars game, fanfic style, but I imagined my efforts would have been rewarded only with Cease and Desist letters. I personally see nothing wrong with fanfiction (or game mods themed like fanfiction) when it's not-for-profit.

    Moves like this don't bode well for people who want to make game mods, nor does it bode well for fanfic authors. Will Funimation start shutting down DBZ fanfic sites, or has this already begun?

  • Because slashdotters are trying to learn what is copyright infringement and what isn't.

    This example is interesting because normally copyright applies only to the actual implementation, not reimplementing it from scratch (that's what patent's cover). For instance, if you take a photo of St Pauls Cathedral from a specific angle I am not allowed to copy it without your permission, I am however allowed to to take a photo myself from the same angle.

    But in this case, no original material (pictures, samples etc) needs be duplicated to infringe copyright, you can create your media from scratch but because it deliberatly resembles someone elses you are infringing copyright.

    That's what the discussion is about, copyright is quite a complicated issue and many slashdotters are in positions where they'd like to know as much about it as they can. Not everything is in the copyright FAQ.
  • IIRC, the Aliens TC for Doom met the same fate.

    Not that it matters, but Aliens TC for Doom didn't meet the same fate - I think you're thinking of an attempted Aliens conversion for Quake.
    When A-TC for Doom was brought to the attention of someone at Fox (can't remember if it was the legal team though), their reply was something like "Doom? Never heard of it. Your thing is probably OK so long as it's not distributed too widely".

    Shortly after that, first person computer games were making too much money to not come to the attention of such companies, and as soon as thoughts turned to licensing the rights, protecting those rights became an issue...

    Aliens-TC for Doom bascially snuck through just before the wave of Doom's popularity changed things.
  • One of the sneaky things about copyright is that in order to be copyrighted, the expression must be "fixed in tangible form." Unfortunately, you, your (oral) speech, and your actions are not tangible, unless you record everything.
  • From PlanetNamek [planetnamek.com] Chris, lead designer of Bid For Power, has this to say about the situation: "Bid For Power has not been ceased by funimation and we as well heard about this from slashdot.org. This is just a rumor going around the net." Wow- even the _subjects_ of stories now get to hear about unsubstantied rumors about their work directly from Slashdot.
  • http://www.havenco.com
  • "I've heard many times that characters (e.g. Mickey Mouse, Batman, etc) are copyrighted. Not trademarked, but copyrighted."

    Maybe that is not true, even if someone said it. Go search the Trademark database [uspto.gov] for Mickey Mouse.

  • Re:IANAL, but... (Score:3)

    by dkh2 ( 29130 ) <`moc.hctIstiTyMoDyhW' `ta' `2hkd'> on Thursday December 14, 2000 @09:59AM (#558890) Homepage
    ... however, they can't sell said mod without getting the permission...
    Actually, (IANAL) you can't even distribute. Distribution is publication ... is (C) infringement.

    Example: Johnny likes bikes. Johnny builds a website about bikes with all sorts of neat links and stuff and includes a page that quotes from the [your state here] legal code as published by Banks Baldwin Publishing. Sooner or later Johnny gets a C&D letter from BBP due to the BBP(C) on their publication. No money was ever transferred to or solicited by Johnny but, the C&D order holds because BBP stands to lose financially due to Johnny's web site.

    Think it can't happen? Think again. It happened to me.

    Code commentary is like sex.
    If it's good, it's VERY good.

  • Whats Involved In This Game (Score:5)

    by Agrippa ( 111029 ) on Thursday December 14, 2000 @10:00AM (#558891)
    Really, how involved can this game be? The typical DBZ episode breakdown:

    3 minutes of recapping the last episode
    4 minutes flying around
    8 minutes powering up
    4 minutes of those 8 spent talking about how the person powering up is achieving a new level of power previously not believed to be attained
    1 minute of the bald short dude saying "I know I can't beat XXX but I must try"
    30 seconds of fighting
    5 minutes standing around staring each other down
    1 minute of telling the other fighter how their efforts are futile
    2 minutes of the announcer speculating on what is going to happen next
    1 minute of the characters thinking what the announcer speculated on
    2 minutes of the announcer speculating on what is going to happen in the next episode (again)
    The rest of the time is commercials/credits.

    So in a typical 30 minute map you would have 30 seconds of playing the same fighting animation over and over against a striped background. Sounds like fun!

    .agrippa.
  • Or better yet, for "Field" select the "Owner Name and Address" and search for Walt Disney. Gee, look at all those entries.
  • Unfortunately, your assumption is incorrect. There was a group creating a Half-Life mod based on Starcraft. As both a Half-Life fan and a Starcraft fan, I Really wanted to see this.(Can you Imagine the player models?) This would have been a mod created "for the love of the game" and not for profit, however as soon as Blizzard heard about it, they got out their lawyers and shot it down. Censorship is alive and well in the U.S. The government may not be able to do it openly, but Corporations can, and do so rabidly. This is a bad thing, since 'We the People' have no way of preventing Corporate censorship. Yeah, you can say 'Boycott' all you want, but in the end people will buy the products that they want, regardless of the business practices of the manufacturer.

    Just my .05(inflation) oh, and BTW: since no one else has mentioned hot grits, I will, er, have:-)

  • And more to the point, where could anybody get the idea that making a game mod based on a cartoon somehow was "fair use". The inadequacy of mass education rears its head again.
  • I have heard in the past that sites that use banner adds for income are a problem. The argument is that the content is being sold under the "guise" of banner advertising in essence.

    Pan
  • There was a time when companies and other copyright holder understood that when someone (like say, a game mod maker) makes something that uses some parodies or some other representation of a copyrighted, trademarked, or otherwise "owned" character, it would generate more interest in the "real" character.

    For some reason, common sense has totally left this field. It seems that the only way to be truly "safe" is to avoid using any material that is owned by anyone.

    The other thing that bothers me is that protecting copyrights and trademarks used to be about protecting companies/owners from losing money. If someone makes something, and totally gives it away, absolutely does not require any payment at all for it (like some game mods), how are they causing the original "owner" to lose money? They are creating something that gets the name owned by the owner more exposure, thus generating more interest in the owners "product" and if anything creating more revenue for the owner. Much like fanzines and such, why would you want to destroy someone that is giving you free advertising?

    This entire bunch of copyright/trademark disputes just makes me sick. What happened to common sense in this day and age? Do we all have to have a law degree before we are considered to have any knowledge that is "worthwhile"? I just don't get it.

  • In '94 I made a Doom conversion based on a movie. It was very popular, and opened up a lot of opportunities for me. I imagine that its success was not inconsiderably aided by the movie being a part of the culture shared by the gamers.
    Despite this, I found it not only artistically unsatisfying (to be chained to existing ideas), but that the legal limits imposed on what I could do with my own work (due to my work being based on IP that I didn't own) were more annoying than I anticipated. I wouldn't even dream of doing it again.

    So what do you do?
    You can either be original, drawing from all your favorite things (which is awesome fun and my recommendation), or you can decide to match the "feel" in your game without infringing on any IP, and simply let the gamers imagine themselves to be in the world that you're technically not allowed to portray. This isn't as difficult or dodgy as it sounds, and at the end of you, it could be you ending up with valuable IP. Don't try to make an imitation that's just far-off enough to not infringe, try to make 'em some competition - something that is appeals for the same reasons, but is even better...

    (And if you suceed, you could end up being paid to do that stuff :-)
  • I am the head of a company that produces a magazine every quarter a year. It's about Anime & Manga and we had a magazine with DBZ on the cover and an article of several pages about it inside. It's in Europe, but the rules apply anywhere, only the companies differ.

    For every country there is a company which holds ALL rights of productions about DBZ, that is for those that will be spread. Your own drawn images don't count, UNTIL you are making copies of them and giving them away or something.
    Also, it DOES NOT matter if you are making money out it or not. We, for one, are a non-profit company, so we weren't filling our pockets or anything.

    Once you want to make something that has to do with DBZ, you have to contact this company (for the Netherlands this was a French company!) and request clearance for what you have made. Once they think it is good enough, more often than not it is send to Japan, to the original creators. After their examination and clearance you can use the DBZ material that you have shown to them.

    Almost always they don't want any self-made creations of DBZ. You'll have to use original art (probably from an artbook) which you can adjust to your need in case of the mod. 'Self-made pictures will degrade the product of the original artists.' they say.

    Keep in mind that when you start another project it all begins from the beginning again...

    It took us 5 weeks to get clearance for the cover.

    Final note: DBZ was shown on TV in Japan about 20 years ago!
  • The copyright laws are an agreement between the public at large and the copyright holder. There is an exchange of rights inherent in the copyright law, not a grant of supreme irrefutable autocratic power.

    This applies even in places such as the USA where there have concerted efforts to turn copyright into some kind of "irrefutable autocratic power".

    f those who construct the "mod" or whatever can show that it meets the criteria of Fair Use, which is just as much a part of copyright law as the limited monopoly,, then all the lawyers and all the cease and desist letters are going to find themselves utterly defeated by something called a Judgement for the Defendant.

    Assuming the case actually gets before a judge, one problem here is that there is little restriction on using lawsuits as a method of herassment. (Also IIRC in the US such a judgment need not require the plaintiff to pay all the defendant's costs.)
  • The owners of the DragonballZ license are in their right to ask that development of this mod stop and all distribution be cancelled.

    IMHO they have no such right. They might have the right to restrict distribution of any of their property. But they do not have the right to interfere with the distribution of someone else's property.
    The game manufacture having any claim on the "mod" makes as much sense a paint maker having a claim on an artist's work, a lumber yard having a claim on the copyright to a book, the designer of a synth having a claim on a pop record, etc.

    The mod has the potential of diluting the strength of the DBZ brand and hindering sales of a DBZ game if/when one comes out.

    This appears to be confusing copyrights with tradmarks. As for the "hindering sales", there is this little thing called a "free market economy" which dosn't guarentee DBZ (or anyone else) sales in the first place.
  • You could license the characters from them if you wished to. It's not fair use when you're appropriating their characters for your game, because you *are* depriving them of profit if they were ever to release a game themselves using their *own* characters.

    This is a flawed argument since it's based around the assumption that commercial orgainsations have a right to make a profit. Whilst they might have a duty (to investors and shareholders) to attempt to make a profit this is something different from having the right to do so.
    Further its rather difficult to deprive anyone of something which may not even exist in the first place.
    Let alone that using copyright in this way tends to discourage creation and innovation. Certainly in places such as the USA the whole point of copyright is to encourage creative work. The best way to do this would be to give copyright protection only to people who actually do creative work, rather than giving copyright holders right over other people's work. e.g. if someone produces a mod to a game then they own the copyright on the mod. The original game producer owns the copyright on the unmoded game. If anyone (including the original game producer) wants to distribute a version of the game which includes the mod then they need permission from both.
  • Certainly you can _make_ any mod with any borrowed characters or plotlines or anything, but you can't _distribute_ it without proper permissions and/or licensing, even if you're giving it away for free, because in essence it's based on someone else's copyrighted work. It's not because you're not charging for the product that makes you any less responsible for the intellectual property and original ownership.

    This is why having a copyright definition which includes "derived works" is a bad idea. There are very, very few original works in the first place. Exactly where do you place the dividing line between "original work" and "derived work"? (Who has the most money in a dispute, maybe?)
  • It seems from what everyone else is saying that you should not release said mods in the US but on this side of the pond I could release them for you (as long as they did not contain any of the original).

    You'd still get US companies hassling you, since when (not if) the mods were imported into the US. Then you'd have a conflict of laws.
  • it depends on the mod.. if I make a barbie mod it's clearly parody. if I make a DBZ mod, it's less clear, because basically the content is similar (cartoon violence, little story). You can also bet that a 'wallace and gromit' mod is a parody. you have to look at it on a case by case basis.
  • Now, i might be wrong about this, but i have read/heard that Japanese copyright laws explicitly PERMITS fan-fiction style derivate works. That is, as long as you name the original copyright owner, you can even SELL something based on someone elses world/characters/etc.

    IIRC its more that the US is out of step with the rest of the planet in making "derived works". Since most things are "dervied works" anyway, this would have been far less of a problem with the original short term US copyright though.
  • Sure, but is there anything *illegal* about it?

    By your argument isn't linux, as it is a free alternative to Windows etc, undermining commercial OS's? And if you're supporting linux doing this, then you *must* (by your rationale with the parent of this thread) also support MS making IE free to undermind netscape... so you are also a "closetted Microsoft-supporter."

    A company has every right to offer a free alternative to something their competitor makes. They can also lower their prices to drive competitors out of business (Barnes and Noble?)... Its immoral as hell, and I don't approve of companies doing it, but is it *illegal*?
  • No, it's not legal, it's just who has the deepest pockets. If MAD magazine, or MAD TV, or SNL, or one of those outfits does a parody of some copyrighted characters, they don't get into trouble. It's the little guy who can't afford to defend himself who gets swatted down. Let some guy in the Cayman Islands, or Upper Whateverstan, put the mods on a web-site there, then tell DraggingBallz "Yes, Sir, I tried to withdraw it, but that guy won't listen to me. You'll have to talk to him about it."

    Hey, there's how to make a fortune, set up a hosting service in one of these little countries that doesn't give SQUAT about big dumb US corporations, and put all this kind of stuff on the Web there.
  • I'm not sure when you think that time was, but it wasn't anytime in our lifetimes, unless you're a lot older than I think. In 1924, there was a case called King Features Syndicates v. Fleischer, which was a suit over making a toy out of a character in the "Barney Google and Spark Plug" comic strip.
  • Wrong. While it's true that not selling it improves your chances of getting fair use, it doesn't guarantee you haven't infringed. The reason you can distribute to a few friends is that that's not public distribution as defined by the Copyright Act, whereas putting it on the net is.
  • Certainly you can _make_ any mod with any borrowed characters or plotlines or anything, but you can't _distribute_ it without proper permissions and/or licensing, even if you're giving it away for free, because in essence it's based on someone else's copyrighted work. It's not because you're not charging for the product that makes you any less responsible for the intellectual property and original ownership. Creating a movie/game/tv based mod (or any other derivative work) means using someone else's imagery, sounds or storylines to enhance your own. In doing so, you're playing with the borrowed content's reputation at some point. For example if you make a mod about the X-Files and your mod sucks, well some retarded fucks are going to distort that into believing that the X-Files tv series sucks (well it kinda does suck, but that's just my personal opinion). At that point you're damaging the real X-Files and are open to lawsuits to compensate their (estimated) losses, so copyright law prefers to avoid all that bullshit and just disallow anyone from using content without prior permission.
  • Of course you've patented this idea, right?
  • I'm slightly confused as to how they are infringing. Are they using copyrighted images, or is it just the names of the characters that is an issue? If either is the case, couldn't they just change it enough to squirm out of the violation?
  • Unless the toy was given away for free, then we aren't exactly talking about the same thing. I can't think of too many toys that are completely free. And basically, it just seems wierd to me to sue someone that is giving you free advertising.

    However, someone turning a profit on a character that you own, well, you should have every right to sue, ask for part of the take, or get something out of it. But that's only if they are selling something. Things given away for free aren't the same as things being sold. Or at least, that's how I see it.

  • Copyright doesn't apply, unless you authored yourself. Not to mention the fact that you can't copyright facts or ideas, only expression. State privacy laws may apply, sure, but not copyright.
  • Research doesn't always make it acceptable, as I'm sure you're aware - look at the Texaco case; conversely, fair use is of benefit to far more than the academic community, or have you never rented a movie?
  • The general recommendation with using material copyrighted by others in mods is, don't use any. It is always better to make original characters for use in mods. Not only does it create risk that the creators might object (as in this case), it makes the mod seem unoriginal and unprofessional.
    ------------------
    A picture is worth 500 DWORDS.
  • The decision would have been exactly the same if it was given away for free.
  • "you're denying them the very humanity they're seeking to find in the world and in themselves."

    Oh, come on! That was sooo transparent.

  • IANAL

    I asked Simon R. Green for permission to use his "Deathstalker" novels as a basis for a clan or whatever the hell they were called on UO.

    His reply was that he couldn't give permission because it would mean he was actually giving me permission for far more than just the clan. Apparently it would mean I could do whatever I wanted (or at least a great deal) with the characters/etc, and his lawyers said that it could cost him if he tried to make a game out of it later.

    Also, I've heard that if a company doesn't go after you for a license breach, then they are actally decreasing the value of their claims against other potential breaches in court.

    Failure is not an option.
  • oh, and to follow up my post ;)

    He seemed to be implying that he had to say no if I asked, but that he wouldn't do anything about it if I HADN'T asked. But that sort of goes against the other stuff I heard, so I don't know what to say about that.

    Failure is not an option.

  • They should just do a 'clean room' implementation of all the skins and models

    This is called "creating your own cartoon environment, based on the same character stereotypes that the DBZ creators used, and making a mod about it." This would work and would be legal, but you'd need to pay lots of animators. Character stereotypes are uncopyrightable (see also Capcom v. Data East), but implementations of those stereotypes in any commercialized cartoon (Draggin'BallZ, PokeMoney, etc.) are trademarks of their respective companies; trademark infringement is unfair competition under the Lanham Act. And don't count on waiting for trademarks to expire; USPTO trademark registrations are renewable for an unlimited number of 10-year terms, and copyright is already perpetual [everything2.com].


    Tetris on drugs, NES music, and GNOME vs. KDE Bingo [pineight.com].
  • "Gangsta's Paradise" by Coolio borrowed its track from "Pastime Paradise" by Stevie Wonder. Time to go get the MP3 off Napster...
    Tetris on drugs, NES music, and GNOME vs. KDE Bingo [pineight.com].
  • There is a difference. Fanfic is textual and static; most pop games are graphical and interactive. Fanfic would not include likenesses of the characters; game mods do.
    Tetris on drugs, NES music, and GNOME vs. KDE Bingo [pineight.com].
  • Yes. Coolio wasn't even the first rapper to sample it.

    LK
  • Well that doesn't help because all the big bandwidth ISPs are very trigger happy. Havenco will have this problem to eventually, not that some one will cut their cable, but they won't beable to buy a connection to the internet.
  • Perhaps there should be a distinction between "derivative work" and "inspired work", in the sense that derivative work literally borrows items from other authors such as characters, plotlines, etc.. whereas inspired work is simply what it sounds like : stuff you dreamt of after reading or seeing someone else's work, which doesn't borrow any tangible concept from that other author although the style or setting might be similar. This is how copyright law is "supposed" to work although it rarely does. In an ideal world, someone who makes a mod featuring the real X-Men would need to seek permission to use the X-Men characters and sounds, else he/she/it would get beaten to a bloody pulp and fed to the dobermans. In that same ideal world, someone who makes a mod that looks and feels a bit like an X-Men adventure yet doesn't employ the comics' characters and has its own original cast would be perfectly legal and immune from retarded greedy corporations and their equally retarded greedy lawyers.
  • I find it interesting that this story was talking about a mod that uses characters from Dragon Ball Z while there is a Half-Life mod in the works which is simply titled "Dragon Ball Z Mod" I find it strange that the company doesn't find them and destroy all THEIR dreams first... this must have some sort of significance....... maybe
  • I have a feeling that you can't make and distribute mods even if they are free. There was a Doom mod a while back that turned the shotgun demon character into the Energizer bunny. For a while it was freely availble on CompuServe, AOhell, and the like. Suddenly it disappeared because of a cease and desist letter sent to those among other ISP's who hosted the mod. The rationale at the time was that it wasn't covered under fair use, therefore it had to go. Unless something has changed, I'd say that this is the same situation.

  • If this is the case then why isn't our good friend Wierd Al getting sued of his ass every time he releases a record. He is protected under free use.

    Of course I suppose it could be different for the music industry, and Bid For Power isn't exactly a parody. Still it would be a shame to see it go down. I hope they 'accedentaly' let the source slip out before they are crushed.

    -Nails-
  • Sadly, not only has a game company been liscenced to make a DBZ game, but a TERRBILE company has been picked. So this mod, which was looking to be very fun and well done, is going to get nixed so that a game made by the creators of Deer Hunter. What I don't understand is why mod makers using copyrighted material are so cavalier about putting up big websites displaying what they're doing. They seek publicity before the mod is even done, and often that publicity leads lawyers straight to them. Why not keep quiet until you're done- so that once released, the mod is out there and can't be stopped up? Another option would be to release all the character unskinned and unamed- with no direct DBZ references, and then release a second pack more covertly that has all the illegal DBZ skins and data.

  • Infringement in Game Modifications (Score:5)

    by Eupolis ( 17084 ) on Thursday December 14, 2000 @11:08AM (#558938)
    Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer.

    The way a court will address a game modification matter is going to be a really complicated and touchy matter. The copyright issues involved are far from resolved. Not only are there different international standards (Europe is much more protective of copyright than is the U.S.), but the U.S. has not resolved differing interpretations of the law among its courts.

    Copyright in characters usually depends upon how well defined and delineated the characters are. The more personality and distinctiveness ("originality") you give a character, the more likely it is that the character will be protected by copyright. At its extreme, this standard let the movie studio owning the James Bond movie character sue Honda for a commercial which depicted unnamed Bond-like characters doing Bond-like things. (That case came from a district court in the Ninth Circuit, which is very copyright-friendly.)

    That standard, however, was developed for use in books and films. It's unclear how delineated a computer game character can be. However, the character-and-storyline rationale supported the decision in the Micro Star v. Formgen case, from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In that case, the 9th Circuit held that Micro Star's distribution of map files for Duke Nukem 3D infringed Formgen's Duke Nukem copyright. Personally, I think the case went too far, especially since Formgen had distributed a map editor to users along with the game. (The court, if I recall correctly, implied a license for users to design their own levels and maybe even trade them, but not for Micro Star to compile and resell them. But that might have been my copyright class filling in a gap in the court's reasoning.) The Ninth Circuit said that Formgen's characters were distinctive enough that distributing files which put the characters into new scenarios infringed Formgen's copyright. Rather than get into the mechanics of the game, the court seemed (to me) most interested in preserving (perhaps extending) a general rule of copyright: The author of a story (including, now, a story in the form of an interactive game), if it is adequately distinctive (and the bar is apparently pretty low in the 9th Circuit), generally has the exclusive right to write, develop, or license sequels.

    Another case which deals with the use of characters in surroundings where their authors did not originally put them is Disney v. Air Pirates, from the same Court of Appeals in 1978. Air Pirates wrote a magazine which depicted Disney characters such as Mickey Mouse involved in all sorts of decadent activities (drug smuggling, etc.). Disney won the copyright infringement case because its clearly delineated characters were copied by someone else. It helps that the characters were in graphic form, and so copying was easily recognizable. Disney's characters are more delineated than the characters of most computer games, but I would not be shocked if, under this standard, many computer game characters would be easily infringed.

    The issue of supplanting the characters in a given game with different characters in the same game engine and surroundings, or supplanting the capabilities given to the characters in the game with different capabilities, has not yet arisen in the courts. But it seems that it would be easy to infringe, and that at least in the Ninth Circuit it would be quite possible for the plaintiff to win. (I can't predict what would happen if the case went to the Supreme Court.) The Ninth Circuit is an important court for us to consider, because it covers the west coast of the U.S. Its jurisdiction thus includes not only Hollywood (which is why it's had so many copyright cases), but also all of the west coast software developers.

    Fair use:
    Fair use is determined by weighing four statutorily defined factors:
    (1) The purpose and character of the use,
    (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
    (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, relative to the whole copyrighted work, and
    (4) the effect of the use on the potential market for the work.
    No one factor is dispositive -- courts must weigh them all.

    I don't have time even for a halfway full discussion of fair use, but I'll talk briefly about the four factors.

    Purpose and Character of the Use: Commercial uses are accorded less worthiness than are noncommercial uses. Uses which change the ideas expressed in a copyrighted work get more benefit than do uses which don't change the ideas. Copying for purposes with specially recognized benefits (parody, book/music reviews, etc.) gets a little more benefit even if done for a commercial purpose, but the copier may copy only so much as is absolutely necessary to make his or her point, and no more. Air Pirates did not get a fair use defense for the idea of "parody of drug use" because there was no reason for them to choose the Disney characters in particular. That the Disney characters seemed better or funnier for the purpose was not a good enough reason.

    The Nature of the Copyrighted Work: Having not seen fair use defenses in software copyright cases before, I don't know how the court would look at this factor here. This inquiry seems to me to be a question preliminary to the fourth factor, which asks what the effect of copying is likely to be on the market for the original. It can also be read more broadly, as an instruction to the court to "remember to find out what it's dealing with" in each case.

    Amount and substantiality of the portion taken: If you take the "core material" from a work and reproduce it without really changing the idea conveyed, that's more offensive to copyright than if you copy a few snippets. The Nation magazine may have only copied a few thousand words from Gerald Ford's rather long memoirs, but they copied the thing in the book everyone was most interested in: his thoughts on his decision to pardon Richard Nixon. They lost their fair use defense. While it seems to me that this would lean in favor of a mod maker or at least neutrally, because not much is usually taken, I can't say anything for sure.

    Effect on the Market for the Original Work: We all know that a mod maker's reproduction of characters is generally not going to deprive the characters' authors of any of the market for their original work. It might even help. But it's going to depend on the way the copying was done in the individual case. If you make a mod that uses characters from an isolinear game in a first-person-shooter, this would probably run in your favor. If you take the characters from a not-so-wonderfully-designed first-person shooter, port them into Q3, and design levels to resemble the poorly-designed game only better, this factor is going to hurt you. Note that the plaintiffs do not have to prove actual damage to their market-- they only have to show potential damage to swing this factor their way.

    Notice, most of all, that fair use is a defense that is applied from case to case. It is a weighing of factors based on the facts of each case. So, you don't know for sure that you've got a fair use defense in a given case unless it's been tried in court.

    The moral of the story (in my non-lawyerly opinion): if you want to avoid trouble, the safe route is probably to try to get a license from the people who created the character to use it in the context you want to use it in. The fact that you may not be selling the mods for a profit might help a bit in a fair use defense, but it does not preclude a finding of infringement. Copying from a copyrighted work and giving the copies away for free is just as illegal as selling copies.

    I'm still not a lawyer. If you think you're going to run into this sort of trouble, you need to find one.

  • What THe?! (Score:4)

    by clinko ( 232501 ) on Thursday December 14, 2000 @09:22AM (#558941) Journal
    Yea, this sucks. Everyone Got pissed when I made the "Columbine, the adventure continues" Quake Mod. Geez...

    Maybe that was a bad idea.

  • Unfortunate but legal... (Score:3)

    by azephrahel ( 193559 ) on Thursday December 14, 2000 @09:22AM (#558942)
    Unfortunately Fair Use seems to mean for your own use. So you can make something, but can not distribute it and be garunteed protection under fair use. Even satire, which is supposed to be under fair use has been deemed illigal (look up some of the Disney cases if you want to..that company is EVIL).
    If a company wants to ban a free, NFP game that some kids write on their own free time, just because it uses the companies carichters, they can happily sue them under our laws, and anyone else who has a copy too.

    I just whish more companies were like Lucasfilm, where you can make as many Star Wars games stories comics and artwork as you want and share freely, you just can't sell it without their permission.
  • Perhaps there should be a distinction between "derivative work" and "inspired work", in the sense that derivative work literally borrows items from other authors such as characters, plotlines, etc.. whereas inspired work is simply what it sounds like : stuff you dreamt of after reading or seeing someone else's work, which doesn't borrow any tangible concept from that other author although the style or setting might be similar.

    Where would you draw the line?
    The problem is that when copyright starts also giving rights over "derived works" or over distribution. It has moved more into patent or tradmark territory. When you have what amount to "patents" on all aspects of a novel which last nearly a century there is a grave risk of having no independant authors.
    IMHO the solution is to either have short term "American style" "copyright" or to have long term (possibly infinite) copyright which solely protects original works from being copied i.e. if someone creates a "derived" or "inspired" work then that person owns the copyright on their creation.

  • It's usually about competition (Score:5)

    by mblase ( 200735 ) on Thursday December 14, 2000 @09:23AM (#558946)
    I've noticed that *often* (not always), when "cease-and-desist" orders of this nature come up, it's because the owners of the license want to, or might want to, release a similar product of their own.

    Translation: It's very very likely that the owners of the DragonBall Z franchise will want to release their own video game in the near future; even if they don't, the franchise is popular enough that the probability of a video game is high. So while the owners of, say, the Barney the Dinosaur probably won't fight too much over a Quake mod featuring their characters, the owners of DragonBall Z will want to reserve that right to those who legally license the rights.

    However, it's always illegal to use someone's legally-owned characters without their permission. Some are just more likely to send lawyers out than others.

  • Well yes that would be nice, although unenforceable because there will always be that horrendous plagiarist who simply does a text replace on all names and places then rereleases the book as his own. Just like that loser who kept copying your notes in high school. There are losers everywhere and no law will ever be clear enough to expose them all.
  • Syndicate was a really sweet game, and I still love the Tempest on the Jaguar... At the end there, you could snag a console for I believe $39 at elbo.

    I'm trying to find someplace that still stocks and sells the old games...
  • Sure it does. 2 Live Crew's "Pretty Woman" parody didn't infringe do to fair use, and that was commercial and widespread.

  • Re:Fair Use (Score:4)

    by guinsu ( 198732 ) on Thursday December 14, 2000 @11:18AM (#558956)
    I want to buy a sticker of Calvin pissing on the sort of people who buy pissing Calvin stickers.
  • Good point, bad example.

    Weird Al, long may he reign, always gets explicit permission to do parodies. The only exception was "Amish Paradise", and Al at least claims he was informed by his people that permission had been given.

    And as far as "you should be ok", I'd revise to include "if you can afford a decent lawyer". Being sued can ruin you, whether or not you're right.


    My mom is not a Karma whore!

  • my uninformed opinions (Score:3)

    by _|()|\| ( 159991 ) on Thursday December 14, 2000 @11:24AM (#558959)
    Please do not encourage the amateur lawyers to voice their uninformed opinions. ... History has shown that we mostly don't really know what we're talking about.

    Ask Slashdot is not legal advice. It is not a substitute for time with a lawyer. It's still a resource. Ditto USENET and any other distributed discussion forum. I sometimes read the forums at vwvortex.com for ideas and help with my car. I still take it to the mechanic.

    My advice for the original poster is to be very careful about investing time on a project that is based on a TV show, movie, etc. The game industry refers to this as a license, as in "The Matrix is a hot license"--the right to use Warner Brothers' Matrix trademarks, copyrights, and possibly patents is valuable. Incidentally, some folks are working on a Matrix mod for Half-Life [planethalflife.com]. They are setting a trap for themselves. Warner Brothers can shut them down (or threaten to do so, which is almost as good). Another poster on this topic mentioned that this happened to the Aliens TC for Doom.

    Some game companies will develop a game in the hope of securing a license. This is kind of like typecasting a role for a play or a movie. For example, M. Night Shyamalan wrote The Sixth Sense with Bruce Willis in mind. It worked out as he hoped. That was lucky. As an independent working more for love than money, don't count on such luck.

    There are some articles at Gamasutra [gamasutra.com] that discuss this topic in more detail. For instance, "Artistic License: Acquiring, Managing and Dealing with Licenses (and Making Them Profitable) [gamasutra.com]" in the Business & Legal features and "Adapting Licensed Products to the Computer Medium [gamasutra.com]." Most of the rules that apply to a game company apply to a mod maker. It doesn't matter that you're not trying to make money. It doesn't matter that you love The Matrix, DragonBallZ, Aliens, etc. The owner of the licensed property will defend his trademark, copyright, and patent rights.

  • Wierd Al doesn't get his ass sued off for two reasons: his songs actually ARE covered under the parody exception, but he also asks permission from the artists (although not necessarily the actual copyright holder....) before doing so, and the artists wouldn't want to be associated with a lawsuit by the music company after they've given their permission.

  • Re:It perpetuates violence (Score:4)

    by Lord Kano ( 13027 ) on Thursday December 14, 2000 @11:35AM (#558962) Homepage Journal
    It shouldn't be made into a game mod precisely because it isn't an outlet for teenage violence -- it's a source of teenage violence.

    So I guess Hitler must have played Der Juden Pong when he was a kid, is that it?

    Videogames incite children to violence, period.

    Period? You're the supreme authority and final word on the topic? There has been no proof of that assertion. It would be akin to saying that having condoms available makes kids want to have sex. Or my personal favorite, that peaceful protesters incite more radical elements to commit violence.

    I should know, because whenever I used to play videogames, I myself would start to get violent, and so did all of my friends.

    I don't think that slamming the controller whenever you'd lose counts.

    LK
  • The only exception was "Amish Paradise", and Al at least claims he was informed by his people that permission had been given.

    The funny thing about that is that Coolio used a sample that was used in a track made 2 or 3 years earlier by a rapper called DMG.

    LK

  • Fair Use (Score:3)

    by iceT ( 68610 ) on Thursday December 14, 2000 @09:25AM (#558964)
    IMHO, as long as you're not profiting from someone elses work, or depriving them of profit, it should be fair use.

    The flip side would be to follow the Calvin and Hobbes example: All those stickers on the back of the trucks that have Calvin urinating on company "X's" logo are not actually Calvin. It is similar, but it has some specific thing that makes it different, and therefore, marketable. People just THINK it's Calvin.

    Just make Goku blonde, and call him kuGo.
  • If someone makes a Q3 mod, the author isn't talking about id's IP being infringed. It's more like this, if I make a BC3000AD based Half-Life mod, are Derek Smart's coprights violated? Can he sue or C&D me for it?

    If id didn't want people to code mods, it would be easy for them to stop it. They write the fscking game engines.

    LK

  • It *is* about competition (Score:5)

    by mblase ( 200735 ) on Thursday December 14, 2000 @09:32AM (#558977)
    Following up my own post: the official DragonBallZ Web site [dragonballz.com] has a press release dated Nov. 30, 2000 that says Funimation has licensed Infogrames, Inc. [infogrames.com] to publish games based on their characters. This license would obligate them to issue cease-and-desist to any non-licensed game developers doing the same.

    The press release is here [infogrames.com].

Slashdot Top Deals

To the systems programmer, users and applications serve only to provide a test load.

Close