Its official - Remakes dont infringe on copyright

Hemebond on 24/3/2007 at 23:06

Quote Posted by JukkaKevät

Hmmm... how about the current rulings about intellectual property? I know Games Workshop (UK company) has forced many mods to cease threatening by juridical actions because the use of their IP.

Personally I've never heard of Games Workshop telling a mod to close; I've only ever seen encouragement. Usually you would have to contact the rights holder; the companies that license GW properties to make computer games. They would be the ones sending the C&Ds if anyone.

JukkaKevät on 25/3/2007 at 06:41

Quote Posted by Hemebond

Those forced discontinuations happened in the first years of 2000 so it's been a while yes. Maybe they shut them down because they were starting their computer game business again, or the mods raped their great vision or then they were just excuses made up by the modders to exit the scene.

I read about two same kind of mods based in the warhammer universe and the other got the cease-and-desist letter while other got a "good job" one. Maybe they make that kind of decisions with a dice, would really suit their style :cheeky:

Anyways, I could be wrong ofcourse.

RootbeerTapper on 25/3/2007 at 11:34

I got a question. You can't make a mod that envolves using character names or materials from the game correct?

This is where I get lost in the whole legal rubics cube. I can go into SS2 snap a screenshot and post that on a site or crop an enemy out of the picture and use that on my site and I own the rights to that photo and 'work of art'? Am I not using materials that are copyrighted from that company yet I own all rights to that photo? I didn't make the model of the hybrid or the texture for it but yet its legal to take a photo and and use that image of the model as I please cause I own the photo and all rights attached to it does anyone else see something wrong here?

Vigil on 25/3/2007 at 12:04

I'm not a lawyer, so this is just my reading of it.

Screenshots are fair-use. They represent only a very small part of the original work, and could be said to be "quoting" from it for the purposes of referring to the original work - rather than for the sake of personal profit. Similar to how you can quote passages from a book or film in a review without needing the copyright-holder's permission, but if you start "quoting" entire chapters then you're in trouble.

So why aren't non-profit mods fair-use? Because they copy substantial parts of the original work and (whether or not they intend to) they directly affect the market for the copyrighted material. A strong case can be made that they can affect sales of the original work and future sales of works derived from the work (sequels) - even if no such loss of sales can be proven or disproven.

icemann on 25/3/2007 at 13:12

And remakes dont get ALOT of public attention in either case. For example, those here that have played Doom regurly in the past. Did you happen to play the Doom remake in Quake that was released long ago? Bet ya haven`t.

Or the Doom64 remake in the Doomsday engine? Same answer? Damn. How about the Wolfenstein remakes?

The remakes world is one that has in the past and even today receives very little public attention, except for those that know of them and where to find them.

Nintendo has yet to stop a single Zelda or Mario remake so far. And I can point you in the direction of a few remakes already released of those 2 games if you like.

Silkworm on 2/4/2007 at 16:24

Quote Posted by Vigil

So why aren't non-profit mods fair-use? Because they copy substantial parts of the original work and (whether or not they intend to) they directly affect the market for the copyrighted material. A strong case can be made that they can affect sales of the original work and future sales of works derived from the work (sequels) - even if no such loss of sales can be proven or disproven.

I don't agree with the second part of the statement, even though its repeated over and over again all over the internet. How does a free mod have any effect of the profitability of a new product? Furthermore why does that matter? Any work in the same genre can "affect" the profitability of any work in the same area if your definition of "effecting profitability" is obtuse enough. How is that possibly a legitimate reason for blocking the work, and where is it actually in the law that freedom of speech must be curbed for corporate interests?

The second question is based on fact... I really don't know if there a "sales" clauses that interfere with the first amendment, if there are please show me where I can find it.

icemann on 2/4/2007 at 18:40

Only thing that I like about when a games company forces a remake or mod based on a game/tv show/movie to close, is that its generally a pretty big sign that that company has some game based on that in the works.

For example, many many years ago a Aliens TC for quake 1 received a cease and desist from Fox. Not long afterwards Aliens vs Predator (the fps game) was released.

Game news site mention of it, back at the time:
(http://www.bluesnews.com/archives/april97-4.html)
(10 news items down)

Hollowtip on 8/4/2007 at 05:07

I haven't read all of this thread, so sorry if i'm repeating what someone has said, but the report clearly says "General ideas and structures behind computer games...."

This means that i can make a game, based on a space station orbiting saturn, where the main character hacks into an AI, removes its ethical constraints, gets a neural implant and then has to defeat the AI before it takes over earth, would not be in violation of copyright. If i said the AI was named SHODAN, then i would be breaking it. If i had the same enemies, which looked extremely similar, then there would be grounds for a legal case to go ahead. Basically, there saying, u can't copywrite a GENERAL idea. Which is how copywrite works in pretty much all countries. Just so people can't go and say, I copywrite all stories based on spacestations.

The case outlined in the report was that one company sued another because they both made games where u could play pool, and get money (virtual or otherwise, i'm not sure) from it. This is definitley a general idea. On the otherhand, if they had invented pool, and billiards or snooker, and all other pool-like games didn't exist, then they probably could copywrite it.

icemann on 8/4/2007 at 07:38

Correct. Aslong as you dont use the same names your fine. If they started allowing lawsuits for things that were very alike, then Doom 1 would have had a field day back in the day :p.

Vigil on 8/4/2007 at 10:10

Quote Posted by Hollowtip

The case outlined in the report was that one company sued another because they both made games where u could play pool, and get money (virtual or otherwise, i'm not sure) from it.

No, the case was specifically that they used the same interface concepts to control and indicate the player's cue stroke.

Quote Posted by The Register

The company did claim that there was an extra right in the imagery used in its game, something beyond the copyright attaching to individual images and related to its use of a power bar used to judge the strength of a pool shot and of a cue control mechanism.

<em>That</em> was what was ruled as too general an idea to be covered by copyright.

[QUOTE=]I don't agree with the second part of the statement, even though its repeated over and over again all over the internet. How does a free mod have any effect of the profitability of a new product?Furthermore why does that matter?

I release a free mod for Half Life 2 that recreates all the levels and the gameplay from Thief: The Dark Project. Then, Eidos re-releases Thief: The Dark Project. It doesn't sell, because people are downloading and playing my mod for free to experience the same game content they would otherwise have had to pay for.

Is it likely that any given company will experience an actual loss of sales from this kind of thing? That depends entirely on the work in question, and copyright law does not legislate based on what is likely, but what is possible.

Quote:

Any work in the same genre can "affect" the profitability of any work in the same area if your definition of "effecting profitability" is obtuse enough.

Indeed. However, a mere "work in the same genre" does not make extensive use of copyrighted material from the work in question, whereas a remake does. That's what makes ripoffs and unauthorised remakes actionable, and "works in the same genre" not.

"Copyright infringement" does not simply equal "using copyrighted material". There are cases in which it is perfectly permissable to use copyrighted material: when reviewing or cataloguing a work, when creating artistic collage, and so on, all of which were discussed in some detail previously. Once again, it comes down to degree.