Messages

What version of Firefox? I'm not seeing the issue, using the latest version, (12.0).

I was using Firefox 11.0, of course, 12.0 was released yesterday!
Well, it seems that the Mozilla developers read these forums, or something.

OK, so I was actually using 12.0 beta 6. 

No it isn't. I'm not sure whether going through Regina Hall's filmography is in-keeping with the spirit of the game  : 

That looks like a bit of a farce...

There are plenty of games where you go around murdering people, but I'm mainly asking about games where the consequences are treated seriously, where you're asked to play a character who is repulsive and amoral without any redeeming qualities.

What version of Firefox? I'm not seeing the issue, using the latest version, (12.0).

I'm impressed by your knowledge of Scary Movie actresses. But no, it's not from that franchise.

OK then. I'll be generous and give you two pictures:

Sorry, I didn't mean to give that impression.

Is the protagonist of your game a good guy? We perhaps prefer to play games that cast us as the good guy because it's somebody we can relate to - everybody's the hero in their own story, nobody really wants to be the villain. When a character is a bad guy, they tend to err on the comical side or have redeeming qualities that let us overlook the out-and-out evil aspects.

Even when a character is depicted as a convicted criminal, half the time they are portrayed as a loveable rogue and the other half innocent of everything they're convicted of. If they are guilty, it's for something petty or at least a justifiable crime, or maybe he's fully repentant of everything he's done.

So why do we hardly ever see a character in a game who is not only evil but a criminal, who has no remorse for his unjustifiable crimes? Is it because an audience can't relate beyond a certain level of malice? Where is that line drawn? Frequently we see games where the protagonist is a robber or a murderer... but what about a rapist or paedophile?

Are there any adventure games where the protagonist is genuinely and seriously evil without any justification for his actions? I can't imagine this is an avenue nobody has been down before.

It depends on the age of the work. This particular movie is definitely in the public domain since it was made in 1937 and even if its copyright had been extended to its full extent, it still would have gone into the public domain in 2004. You can make derivative works of public domain content without asking permission so I believe, in this case, using the artwork in a game would be permitted.

Not true. The current US copyright term is 95 years pretty much across the board for corporate and work-for-hire productions (where do you get 67 from?), so if the copyright was extended back in the day, it won't enter the public domain until 2032.

If all corporate copyrighted works from 1937 had been in the public domain since 2004 (and presumably another 8 years since then, up to 1945), that would be huge. I don't know that Mickey and Superman would be pd (presumably Disney and DC would try to have the courts use the creator's death + 70 years system instead), but it would at least be open to interpretation.

95 years if the copyright is renewed. It was a maximum of 67 pre-2002.

But, anyway, I don't believe the copyright was renewed:

If you look at the distributor credits for "Popeye the Sailor Meets Ali Baba's Forty Thieves": http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0029415/companycredits you can see that Reel Media International distributed it in 2004. Reel Media International only distributes public domain material, so it's a safe bet that it's in the public domain.

Other useful links:
http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm
http://collections.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals/bin/page?forward=home

Manhunter.

You're right, that was easy.

Things do not automatically fall into public domain after a while.

It depends on the age of the work. This particular movie is definitely in the public domain since it was made in 1937 and even if its copyright had been extended to its full extent, it still would have gone into the public domain in 2004. You can make derivative works of public domain content without asking permission so I believe, in this case, using the artwork in a game would be permitted.

Where it gets a little hazier is in more recent works. Copyright laws being what they are, it's unlikely that anything produced today will ever lapse into the public domain during our lifetimes through the age of the work alone. A shame really.

Would it not be easier to go straight from sheet music to keys?

I think icey's game should be disqualified really, I'm pretty sure it violates the rule that everything used in the game should be new material.

I've played it and I don't even know what it's about.

Bottom line is, if you don't have a Facebook account, don't worry about it. You're not going to be automatically signed up or something. It won't affect you in the slightest.

I'm convinced all these "cures" for hiccups don't really work and the only thing that does work is taking your mind off them. So, in a sense, they do work, but not for any other reason than they are distracting.

I played it. It's a bit rough around the edges.

Have you ever made a game that wasn't related to your ongoing PMQ saga? Something with wholly original characters, not ones inspired by Square-Enix properties? I'm genuinely curious.

Scanners?

Tabata, now you need to adapt your vast range of smileys to fit the new theme. If you start now, you might be finished before the next ice age!

Ah, I see what you mean. Thanks, I'll give it a go tonight.

EDIT: I think it's getting better...