gbadev.org forum archive

This is a read-only mirror of the content originally found on forum.gbadev.org (now offline), salvaged from Wayback machine copies. A new forum can be found here.

Game Design > What is legal? Question about copyrights and compo entries.

#26168 - expos1994 - Wed Sep 08, 2004 8:29 pm

Hello,

I am pondering what to do for the compo, and I have all but scrapped my last idea (too much graphics and no artist :( )
I am thinking of doing a semi-remake or a game similar to another game. That got me curious about the legality of making a game similar to another game.

Does anyone know an answer to this or have any thoughts? Of course a game couldn't use any ripped graphics from a copyrighted game. But how close can they be. What about a platform game featuring an italian plumber named Miguel with an orange suit who travels though pipes? It is blatantly a mario ripoff, but all of the graphics would be different. Is that legal? Could it be entered into the compo? Of course I wouldn't even bother making a game this unoriginal, but I'm just curious.

What about gameplay? There are lots of games with similar gameplay. Like RPG's. Many of them have HP and MP. and nearly the same battle system, FIGHT/ITEM/RUN. Noone seems to hold a copyright on that.

Most sports games are almost the same. Subtle features like Madden's new hit stick, and the ESPN VIP profiles are about the only differences there. The graphics are identical aside from different polygon counts and realism. Even the play-picking screens are nearly the same. But there are never lawsuits about that. Those gameplay styles go back to the early days of Mike Ditka football, Joe Montana Sportstalk Football, and the original Madden games. Even as far back as Tecmo Bowl.

And Tetris. Tetris has been remade and re-released on nearly every platform. Some of them multiple times. The graphics/music are always different, sometimes there's little gameplay tweaks and additions, but it's still Tetris. What legal rights does Tetris' creator have to those games? Does he ever recieve royalties?

Really when you think about it, every game in a certain genre uses elements from other games in the same genre. Someone had to do it first, but they don't seem to have any legal right to the ideas.

Does anyone know the answer to this. Are there court cases?

I'm thinking of making some mini-games that I've seen before. They are fun and quick and would fall well under the 512k limit. And the gameplay is suitable for a handheld game. However they've been done before. I woudn't use every gameplay aspect exactly, I would use my own graphics/sound and add new gameplay ideas. I am wondering if this is legal? And I may not even do it at all. I'm kind of in the planning stage now, and I'm curious.

It's been done so many times, but I don't know the answer. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
Thanks.
Chris

PS> Look how many Doom rip-offs have been released?

#26173 - poslundc - Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:59 pm

expos1994 wrote:
Does anyone know an answer to this or have any thoughts? Of course a game couldn't use any ripped graphics from a copyrighted game. But how close can they be. What about a platform game featuring an italian plumber named Miguel with an orange suit who travels though pipes? It is blatantly a mario ripoff, but all of the graphics would be different. Is that legal?


I believe such a creation would fall under the "fair use" clause and be considered legal, as a parody of Mario. Doesn't mean Big N wouldn't fight you for it, though.

Quote:
What about gameplay? There are lots of games with similar gameplay. Like RPG's. Many of them have HP and MP. and nearly the same battle system, FIGHT/ITEM/RUN. Noone seems to hold a copyright on that.


AFAIK, these conceptually abstract ideas have never been challenged (at least not successfully). Any company would have a hard time proving ownership of such a concept, of course, and pen-and-paper RPGs have been doing such things for years and years.

There is a general desire within the industry, of course, not to produce something that looks exactly like what your competition does. So even if an engine works positively the same way as Square's Active Time Battle engine you are likely to notice many other design differences.

Quote:
And Tetris. Tetris has been remade and re-released on nearly every platform. Some of them multiple times. The graphics/music are always different, sometimes there's little gameplay tweaks and additions, but it's still Tetris. What legal rights does Tetris' creator have to those games? Does he ever recieve royalties?


This one has puzzled me for quite some time. Does Nintendo claim any fundamental ownership of Tetris? Or did they get the idea from some other public source that would make it hard to claim such rights?

In general, though, I've not heard of anyone getting sued for ripping off a puzzle game, although they will often change the title or something.

Quote:
I'm thinking of making some mini-games that I've seen before. They are fun and quick and would fall well under the 512k limit. And the gameplay is suitable for a handheld game. However they've been done before. I woudn't use every gameplay aspect exactly, I would use my own graphics/sound and add new gameplay ideas. I am wondering if this is legal? And I may not even do it at all. I'm kind of in the planning stage now, and I'm curious.


I'm no authority on the matter, but so long as you don't go looking for trouble (ie. releasing a game called "Dr. Mario" or something like that) you probably won't find any.

Dan.

#26174 - ScottLininger - Wed Sep 08, 2004 10:04 pm

Expos,

There are three things you need to worry about: copyright, patent, and trademark.

Here are some forum explanations from a while back...

Quote:
COPYRIGHT is the body of laws that protects specific works of art, music, or text. The moment your author something, it is protected by copyright law. If you like, you can put "(C) 2004 My Name. All Rights Reserved" on your work, just to make it clear to everyone. If you're really paranoid, you can send yourself a copy of the work via registered mail, then never open the envelope. If you ever have to go to court, you can show the judge the envelope establishing the date of your claim. This is all free. You don't have to be a giant corporation to afford it.

Now, you may also choose to register your copyright with the US Copyright office, which costs $15 or something, but it is NOT necessary to be protected under the law.

You CANNOT copyright an idea, game system, mechanic, or algorithm, only a specific work of art. So if someone wanted to steal the IDEA of tetris and make it look different, they legally can.

Copyright was never intended to protect a little token of code that you must have in your widgit to make the widgit machine work. I mean, can you copyright a word? NO. That's what trademarks are for...

--------------------------

TRADEMARKS are the body of law that protects specific words, phrases, character designs, or logos from being stolen or even closely copied by competitors. Trademarks cost more, because they MUST be registered with the government(s) of the states/countries where you intend to sell your product. To trademark something, you just put the little TM next to it, then send a copy of your trademark, along with a form detailing when you started using it, to the government. This initial registration process costs a couple hundred bucks, if I remember right. Again, not outside the budget of an individual.

Then, once you've used the mark for a couple of years, you can pay more to register it. This requires an in-depth search to make sure that the mark has not already been taken. Eventually, this will lead to your trademark becoming Registered, which lets you put the little (R) on your mark. The Nintendo logo is trademarked. Mickey Mouse is trademarked. Animated mice are NOT trademarkable. That's what patents are for...

-----------------------------------

PATENTS are the thing that cost a lot of money, comparitively speaking. Patents protect ideas, widgits, algorithms, methods of manufacturing, etc. Monopoly has a US patent, which means it is illegal to create a game with identical mechanics to Monopoly, even if you change all of the art and call it something else.

To get a patent, you have to go through a long and legally involved process, which is why most people hire patent attorneys to do the grunt work. I've never personally gone through the patent process, but I know that the whole thing can be done for under $10,000. Is that a prohibitive amount for a small business? Maybe. It totally depends on how much money the idea can make you, and how important it is to protect that idea from competition.


I'm not a lawyer, but here's my answer to your question:

1. If you were to make your Mario clone, you would NOT be violating copyright, provided you're rebuilding the artwork, story, and levels. You could even copy the exact mechanics without violating their copyright. This is why Doom clones with different graphics, levels, and characters are perfectly legal.

2. You MIGHT be violating their trademark, however. That would be for a judge to decide. If your character looks an awful lot like Mario and the world he lives in is the same, then Nintendo would have a pretty good case that you were violating their trademark. You'd want to stay away from Italian plumbers, I think. ;)

3. I wouldn't worry about Patents. I can't imagine that Nintendo has patented the Mario mechanics (probably they have patented certain aspects of them, but those sorts of patents tend to be so vague that they are unenforceable.)

-Scott

#26177 - pyros - Wed Sep 08, 2004 10:24 pm

expos1994 wrote:

And Tetris. Tetris has been remade and re-released on nearly every platform. Some of them multiple times. The graphics/music are always different, sometimes there's little gameplay tweaks and additions, but it's still Tetris. What legal rights does Tetris' creator have to those games? Does he ever recieve royalties?


Tetris is bit of a strange example. Apparently the guy who wrote it didn't do too well because he was in a communist country at the time or something. There is an account of it's history and the legal battles fought over it here:

http://www.atarihq.com/tsr/special/tetrishist.html

Obviously this isn't a normal case though.

#26181 - poslundc - Wed Sep 08, 2004 10:58 pm

Quote:
ELORG's director, Alexander Alexinko, realizes that Stein is giving out rights he doesn't have and threatens to cut off any deal. Stein, in turn, threatens to start an international situation.


That's hilarious... I can't wait until one of my games threatens to start an international situation.

Dan.

#26184 - tepples - Thu Sep 09, 2004 12:39 am

expos1994 wrote:
Does Nintendo claim any fundamental ownership of Tetris? Or did they get the idea from some other public source that would make it hard to claim such rights?

At one time, Nintendo held an exclusive license to the name TETRIS on game consoles and used it against Tengen, which held the arcade rights but whose console game name TETYAIS was confusingly similar. Most recently, Elorg sold rights in the TETRIS trademark to Blue Planet Software d/b/a The Tetris Company, and Tengen became part of Midway. Alexey Pajitnov, the creator of the tetramino game, gets a share of the TETRIS brand fees. Read more

The general rule is change the name and the graphics and you're OK. However, exceptions include at least Dr. Mario (covered by U.S. Patent 5,265,888, which can in theory be worked around) and possibly Zoop (whose box states Patent Pending, but searches assignees Hookstone and Viacom turn up nothing).
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.