My daily rant...

[DarkRiver Design]

I'm sorry, but I find it really offensive when people get all over other people about violating copyrights. I'm not talking about anything specific on this board, but it really annoys me.

I'll just give you an example. A year or so ago, I was on a message board for a very well-known adventure series. I'd proposed to make a fan game with AGS. I actually have the dedication it takes to put something together, but I decided not to when almost everyone who responded told me how I just couldn't do that. It's not legal. It ws the same message in about fifty different responses.

Well, lemme tell ya: I didn't post my proposal to have it legally analyzed. What I wanted to know was what things fans thought I should put in the game. I don't profess to be a great game designer, but no one has done anything with this series, and there are obviously fans who wanted to play a new game with the characters they knew and loved.

Apparently, I was wrong. I don't think Sierra (the web site I was on) actually has any lawyers any more. They let their fanboy messageboard inhabitants do the dirty work for them.

What's more is, the people who responded didn't really no much about how it was illegal... just that it was, SO THERE! TAKE THAT!

I'd better stop before I have a stroke. Sorry. I just got triggered by a post that reminded me of the fateful post I made so very long ago...

[Raggit]

Man, you'd hate to live with me!

I'm a copyright freak.

[James Kay]

Yeah, copyrights suck...until someone violates yours, eh?

Usually the big publishers don't care too much about fan-made stuff, as long as no mon ey is being made of it and it's not damaging to the IP (like, say, a pr0n version of Monkey Island). So the rule is to not really let it bother you.
However don't be surprised if they do turn around and ask you to shut it down, it has happened (good example, the Ultima 1 remake in 3D. EA, who now owns the IPs was basically saying, 'it's nice an all, but DON'T!", because Ultima is still very much alive).

I hear your frustration, but copyrights are important. And if they annoy you, well, tough.

[shbaz]

Maybe you should have channeled some of that anger into just doing the game anyways.

It's not like you were forced to obey.

[DarkRiver Design]

Maybe I should have, but you know, it would have been something I would have done for that game's fan community. What good is a game that no one plays? I mean, sure, there's the joy of making the game, but that joy stems from the fact that it is something you will be able to share with an audience. If that audience doesn't appreciate what you're doing, then there is no point in continuing the production of the game.

"Yeah, copyrights suck...until someone violates yours, eh?" No. I'm not that pretentious. I would never assume that someone would honor a copyright of mine. I hold that if I release a game, it's up for grabs in every way shape or form, and I would be honored if someone would find my material good enough to use in a game, let alone a fan project.  I wouldn't even request that credit was given to me. In fact, I find it repulsive when someone says "you can use this, but you must give credit to me." BS. I don't HAVE to. Maybe you would like it if I did, but I don't have to. I would if someone said "I'd really appreciate it if you gave credit to me if you use this." Then it's fine. I'm talking about amateur created stuff here, like plugins and art and such.

I DON'T have a problem with commercial copyrights. I have a problem with the fanboys who try to enforce them. If the company has a beef with me, they can take it up with me. If I'm told not to BY THE COMPANY then I will cease. I don't need wannabe legal beagles on my back, though.

And Raggit, I'm sure I'd love to live with you.  

Anywho, sorry if I come off as mad. Keep in mind I'm not talking about anyone specific.

[James Kay]

I see your point - though I don't completely agree with it.
What if you make a free plugin, art whatever, and someone uses it and makes a lot of money with it. You wouldn't be pissed off then, uncredited and poor?

And what about that guy (sorry - I forgot who) who posted here about making a remake of Maniac Mansion and two dozen people jumped down his throat.
Some classic games are so beloved by their audience that they (often rightly) don't trust an amateur to be able to contribute to the legacy in a way that is consistent in content, style and quality with the original. See also the grief this poor guy got who wanted to make a Silent Hill based AGS game.

[Baron]

I think the watershed on the whole issue is money.  If you're making money off someone elses idea, I can see them having a right to go after you.  But if you're not making money, I think anything is a go (at least from my perspective).  If intellectual material in the public domain gets popular enough it becomes part of a common culture, and shouldn't be controlled (except possibly for money earning purposes) by anybody.
    As for appropriate sequels -most sequels, in my experience, are let downs, even when they're made by the copyright holders.  I mean, look what Disney is doing to all it's classic movies!  A singing Cheshire Cat....I never thought I'd live to see the day....  So I say that if you are into a concept so much to want to add to it yourself (by making a game, etc.), well who better than you to do it.
                                                           BaRoN

[DragonRose]

Ummm... Baron? The Cheshire Cat sings in the original- specifically, whenever he appears or dissapears, he sings the first verse of "Jaberwocky."   But I definetly have to agree with you on the general yuckiness of Disney sequels. Come on, Cinderella 2? Where one of the step-sisters is all of a sudden nice?  

Not to mention Lion King 1 1/2.  

That just scares me.

Sorry. Off topic. I'm busy procrastinating.

[Andail]

I don't think most people are upset about you plagiarising other companies' products, I think they are just trying to make you aware that you might be sued, or at least demanded to remove the game from downloading. Which would make the whole project quite a waste of time.

Spyros made a remake of Hugo's House of Horrors, and had to take it down; not because anybody was outraged, not because the original author himself felt offended, it's just a matter of licenses and contracts and all other legal crap that engulfs any commercial product.

[James Kay]

Good point. And also remember, just because you are not making money out of it, doesn't mean you aren't taking away potential earnings from the IP holders. An amazingly well built fanmade game could lower expectations and projected sales of an official sequel.

And when it comes to copyright, there is no "in my view" about it at all.


Bottom line though, with all this ranting:
it's something you should be aware off, but maybe not too worried about.

[rodekill]

I don't understand how anyone could be offended by this. If I create something then it's mine. If I tell you to leave it alone, then you leave it alone. Create you own stuff.
Then again, look at my sig.

[m0ds]

 

[Esseb]

Andail, I thought Spyros took it down because the original author himself contacted him and said that he was still selling the original. If I remember the letter correctly he said he'd approve otherwise. Now that Spyros and Spyros Jr. are among us again he can probably clarify the matter if I'm mistaken.

[Andail_unplugged]

Yes, Esseb, my point was that the author wasn't like personally offended; he even commended Spyros for making such a nice fan-version.

I just meant that it was plainly legal matter - concerning the developers or sellers of the game or whatever - that made it impossible.

[MillsJROSS]

In any event, I don't, personally, care if someone copies some of my stuff. However, if I did care, and you decided to copy my material, and I explicitly told you not to, through some installer of some sort, then I would not only like to stop circulating whatever you "made," I would make sure you did so. Now, this is all hypothetical, I wouldn't really care (see above statement). However, when I give someone material, I have every right to say "If you use this you must give me credit." There is nothing egotistical about this at all. You made it, people should know you made it, even if you're just a bunch of letters to them on a screen. You want people to see your work and say "That's xxxxx's." I am not obligated to ask you nicely, "Please will you give me credit." You are obligated to obey my copyright, unless I give you permission, and if I give you permission only if you give me credit, than you MUST do so, or I will be obligated to take Judicial action to keep my copyright. If a person/company makes no attempt to keep their copyright, they lose it.

As far as fan made games, I have no problem with them. I'd rather people be original, but there are some good fan made games, as long as there done right (Like Tierra, even though it was technically, just a remake, the second one they added to).

-MillsJROSS

[rodekill]

Basically, you should know what you're getting yourself into if you decide to use (C) material, and be prepared to do the right thing if it backfires on you, which Spyros did.

PS: I need a copy of Spyros' illegal game for my AGS collection.

[DarkRiver Design]

You're right, rodekill. That's my whole point. I will take the fall for my own actions. I honestly don't think that people another world away are concerned with me getting sued.

Mills, no offense, but are you really going to sue me if, say, I use a plugin of yours without giving you credit. You could try, but I'm sorry, it's not going to pass in court. The judge wouldn't even hear such a case. Lawsuits like this won't work for another, say, twenty years.

Let me make myself clear: I WOULD give someone credit, regardless, for whatever I put in my game. I'm simply making the five-year-old point that "You're not the boss of me! You can't make me!" Take it or leave it. I'm not trying to offend anyone, I'm just pontificating.

Let me also make clear, the chances of me making a fan game, the chances of me making a good fan game, and the chances of me making a fan game so good that it takes away from (in this case Sierra's) profit it so slim it's not even funny. I'm flattered though.

I totally agree about the Disney sequel thing, though. How can you just make a Cinderella II? I mean, stories end with "...happily ever after." The END! No more! No nice sister, no more mice, she's a princess, they're happy, they're boring, and that's how it should be.

Since I can present tone in my posts, I hope you all realize that I am not saying anything in hostility, and I haven't taken anything personally. Everyone has their own opinion, and I respect that. It's all in good humor.

[rodekill]

Let me also make clear, the chances of me making a fan game, the chances of me making a good fan game, and the chances of me making a fan game so good that it takes away from (in this case Sierra's) profit it so slim it's not even funny. I'm flattered though.

Actually, I believe the intent is to protect the quality and value of the original, not any potential loss of sales.
In other words, they're more worried about people making shit-ass knock-offs which diminish their brand rather than high quality projects which in effect are a type of free advertising.
Also, I believe it's the US that has a law stating that if you don't actively protect your copyrights, you lose them. Don't quote me on that though.

[Ryukage]

Also, I believe it's the US that has a law stating that if you don't actively protect your copyrights, you lose them. Don't quote me on that though.

You're thinking of trademarks, that's a whole different story.  Copyrights are permanent until 70 years after the death of the last legal holder, or until explicitly given up (by declaring your work to be "public domain").  Trademarks, on the other hand, are lost if they become widely used as generic terms, but only if they aren't registered.  (A "TM" is an unregistered trademark, a circled "R" is a registered trademark.)

Of course, as with any other law, the government's not going to enforce it unless someone presses charges.

Also, it doesn't matter what copyright laws may be on the US books, or Japan's, or any other countries.  Copyrights have been standardized as International Law, individual country's laws are obsolete.

[MillsJROSS]

Mills, no offense, but are you really going to sue me if, say, I use a plugin of yours without giving you credit. You could try, but I'm sorry, it's not going to pass in court. The judge wouldn't even hear such a case. Lawsuits like this won't work for another, say, twenty years.

Personally, no, I wouldn't. I was being hypothetical. But if I did care to release something, and wanted credit for it, I would make sure that I legally copyrighted my plug-in. If I told you you could use the plug-in without giving me credit, and you decided not to, I'm fairly certain that  legal action would get the results I desired (not necesarily money, I would just want you to A: not give out the Plug in or B: make sure credit is giving where it is due).

Now if I just made a plug-in, and didn't copyright it, yeah, I wouldn't have as strong a case.

Although, I'd probably make sure my name was embedded in the Plug-in anyway, and wouldn't honestly care unless you tampered with it.

-MillsJROSS