Okay so say someone like myself had a favorite old school puzzle game that was on the Super Nintendo...now suppose I developed the game (not quite exact but darn close) on my pocket PC. Now suppose I think "hey this "port" id did is pretty darn good, I should release it for a small fee to the public on a site like handango.com). So now is this legal? if the game name is different and the game mechanics are very subtily different than the game off the old super nintendo I based this off of? Perhaps this was the wrong board for such a question, and I understand not many lawyers probably visit here, so I am just curious if I could get away with making a release of this game I made and selling it... ON handango.com u can doa search for many puzzle games that have been released elsewhere and people are selling many versions of it...take tetris for instance, pac-man like games etc... Thanks for any info, Shane

It''s legal.... just look at all the tetrises (tetres?) out there, with names other than Tetris. The name can be trademarked, but the gameplay cannot be patented.

IANAL.

How appropriate. You fight like a cow.

I don''t believe that is true Sneftel. If I made a game called ''Dictionary'' but it actually was Scrabble, I''d be in violation of copyright. If you made a game called ''PuzzleQuest'' and it was tetris, and then released it to any broad market, you''d be sued for it. The thing about all the tetris clones out there is that there are just too many of them to track. Most likely none of those people will ever get sued, but they are all, each and every one of them, breaking the law.

So what is one to do then? I would like to release this game for a very low price like 4$ but i mean, thats not enough in sales and price to pay for a licenses im sure... are companies smart enough to licesnse a name of something based upon its popularity?? i.e. if you wanted to licesnse a game based on CrapOlaGameDidntSellAtAllTenYearsAgo then it would be cheap, but if you wanted to license a game on Warcraf3 then it would be hella expensive, or is it just hella expensive across the line...


-Shane

quote: Original post by Sphet
I don''t believe that is true Sneftel.

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/2430/tetris.html

I had one error, tho-- gameplay can be patented (tho not copyrighted).

How appropriate. You fight like a cow.

There was a port of the old classic "Elite" to the pocketPC, and the guy that sold it has been forced to put it down by the mother company, Frontier Developments Ltd. Although from what i remember he had reversed-engineered the original source code and was using the original art.

So, beware. Old games are still copyrighted. Ask the authorization before.

Y.

quote: Original post by Sphet
I don''t believe that is true Sneftel. If I made a game called ''Dictionary'' but it actually was Scrabble, I''d be in violation of copyright.

Only if the board/pieces looked exactly the same. If you had a different board, with different values and the letters were worth different scores then it would not be breach of copyright. The rules/idea of the game are not copyright, although the actual physical rule booklet would itself be protected by copyright. In software it is the code, art (inc text) & audio assets that are protected not the idea or the rules.

If you do the same game then you are breaching copyright and quite a few people have been stopped from selling such titles. Nintendo and Fox are two companies that work hard to protect their IP.

Dan Marchant
Obscure Productions
Game Development & Design consultant

> The rules/idea of the game are not copyright

Only if there is only one way to express the "look & feel". Some courts do not have the technological competence to judge source code, artwork and gameplay; they rely on the notion of "look & feel" to make decisions about copyright claims. This issue is probably more problematic in the US than in the UK, but it is an issue nonetheless.

Take a look at this link for more info: http://www.lbl.gov/Workplace/patent/ch8.html

-cb

Most copyright/patent/trademark laws are based on the concept of "reasonable". In general, if your product is so close that it can be confused with another "reasonably", then it''s too close. So, somethning like just changing the values on the scrabble tiles and sticking on a new name probably is too close - it is obviously the same game to reasonable observers.

The laws and courts aren''t stupid - a copy is a copy, and that''s what is illegal. They also aren''t evil - if your product is "reasonably" different and unique in a real, not superficial, way, then you''re fine.

Being a person who's been working on a simple arcade game that is very similar to a famous early eighties arcade game, how much would I have to "file off the serial numbers" to make the game sufficiently different to avoid getting sued for infringement. I can infer that I need to change the name, and use splash screens, logos, sprites, tiles, models, etc. that look obviously different from the original.

Say for example, I made a space shooter with the player's ship moving side-to-side along the bottom of the screen, shooting at hordes of aliens flying in formation and making diving attacks. I can't believe that every clone of Space Invaders or Galaga is illegal. If that were the case, then zillions of side-scrolling shooters from R-Type to Einhander would have to pay royalties to the creators of Scramble. Would I only have to change the look of the game, or would I have to change the game itself?

I don't want to be the target of the next Hasbro lawsuit.

[edited by - meldroc on September 3, 2003 7:29:20 PM]