Getting Legal Permission for Already Existing Games/Materials

[JNSlay]

Hi

I noticed that AGD (Remakes of KQ1,2 & QFG2) got permission for remaking these games from Sierra.  Is it thus correct to assume that if one want sto create a remake of a game/movie or use materials/names/ideas etc. from already existing games/movies/books that it will be illegal?!

If so, how do one go about getting permission to use ideas/materials/names/etc.  from these companies, e.g. Sierra?

Kind Regards!

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Of course it's illegal to use any copyrighted or trademarked works of an author without his/her permission.  Since most countries recognize an immediate copyright on anything original you create, chances are that if the creator does not explicitly offer his permission to reuse something then you cannot, by law, do so.

However, this does not stop thousands of people on the internet from stealing original works and making flash movies and games, but if you're reusing artwork or music for a personal, non-profit game then I wouldn't worry about it. 

Still, the polite way to go about it would be emailing/calling the people who you wish to borrow from and getting a thumbs up first.

[Radiant]

I noticed that AGD (Remakes of KQ1,2 & QFG2) got permission for remaking these games from Sierra.

Yes. However, note that they released the game first, stating that they knew it was illegal and would take it down if asked. Several years later, they actually got permission (which mandated their name change from Tierra to AGDI). They thought that this was an exclusive deal, but a short time later Infamous Adventures also got permission for their KQ3 game.

Is it thus correct to assume that if one want sto create a remake of a game/movie or use materials/names/ideas etc. from already existing games/movies/books that it will be illegal?!

Yes, except that using a character as a cameo in an unrelated work may be considered fair use, and that parodic works are explicitly allowed. Note that shifting a few names around and adding a joke or two is not sufficient for a work to qualify as "parody", and note that it is rather hard to parodize something that wasn't serious to begin with (e.g. Monkey Island).

If so, how do one go about getting permission to use ideas/materials/names/etc.  from these companies, e.g. Sierra?

Short answer, you don't. Several companies, including Sierra, have been known to terminate fangames via legal action. For instance, Quest for Orgy was taken down, as was Garfield and the Mutant Lasagna. Overall, asking in advance is a sure-fire way of getting either no response or a firm "no". Asking after you have a mostly-completed project of sufficient quality might get you permission. Or, it might still get no response or a firm "no".

Companies are slowly cluing in to the fact that terminating fangames is not such a great publicity stunt, so for most fangames on the internet simply slip below the radar.

[Trent R]

I never payed attention much to the KQIX C&D, but I think it had partly to do with the fact that they were promoting themselves as a sequel. After negotiations, it is being allowed under a sub-title, but not a sequel.

Again, I don't know much and this is bare-bones explanation anyways, but it's something to keep in mind.


~Trent

[Dualnames]

I'm using BBC permission to remake HHGTG..(I wish I was). The rights of the game, are not of Infocom's, but where given to Douglas Adams. If I'm not wrong either BBC or Douglas family has them. I really couldn't find...

[Ghost]

I once read how a parody that is intended to point something out/criticise something is covered by "Fair Use" (http://www.publaw.com/parody.html), basically allowing the makers to mimic existing material to play the Aesop on it.

That would mean that even a good-natured parody without the intention to critcise would, still being a parody, also be covered by Fair Use? Big question mark, since it would mean anyone could simply  include minimal parody elements in his work to use existing material. I am not much good in lawyer lingo though, so I might have misread something.

[Trent R]

Depends, parody is considered that 'catch-all', but that's not really true.

~Trent

[mkennedy]

My question is when does it stop being parody and become plagiarism? You can probably get away with making a fan game if you make all the graphics yourself, but if you actually rip the graphics from another game then I imagine it would be much more harder to defend against a "cease and desist" order.

[Mr Flibble]

I think for it to count as parody you need to pass or imply some kind of comment or re-use the material for a clearly original purpose.

Though I really don't think a person making a small fangame has anything to worry about. The cost of actually persecuting you would outweigh any benefit.

[xenogia]

Currently with my game I am searching out photography that has already been made and using it within my own works.  Most of the stuff I find is under the creative commons licence, and if not I email them personally asking for permission.  Most of the time they are fine with it, especially cause it is free.

I know this doesn't mean much considering you are making a fan game.  But with the track record so far for Sierra fan remakes I think you won't have much of an issue with Vivendi.

On the other hand if it was a LucasArts fan remake I would be very scared indeed.

[Radiant]

My question is when does it stop being parody and become plagiarism?

The answer is determined by whichever party has the most money to spend on lawyers.

[Hudders]

Be warned that the legislation pertaining to fair use does not apply in the United Kingdom where there is no exact equivalent ruling. The nearest we have is the application of "fair dealing" which covers private study and criticism and review and news reporting as well as incidental inclusion in artistic works. Note that this doesn't, therefore, cover parody and satire.

That's not to say that you will be prosecuted, just that you're skating on thin ice. :p