Everybody knows that you cant make a game and copy another game exactly but I am wondering, where exactly is the line drawn? How close can your game be and still be legal? Actually what I really want to know is about 3d models (meshes) usage in games, I know I cant (and dont want to) use models from games that are already patented but if I open up milkshape 3d and make a model that looks somewhat simular to a patented model but it is not exactly like it, is that legal? How close can it be before it''s infringement? Where exactly is the line drawn? Let''s use star wars as an example. Say I really like some of the starships in starwars and I decide to make a 3d space game, obviously I cant use them in my game but how close can my ships in my game look? I want to be very clear about something here, I am not trying to copy anything but I like 3d modelling and I look at a lot of different models, artwork, renders, textures etc. and I am then inspired to come up with my own ideas, everyone is inspired by something. Sometimes I just open up my 3d modeller and start making something, anything, and then it turns out to look good but what if coincidentally, something already exists that looks simular to it? As far as 3d models, meshes, textures and artwork in games how do copyrights work exactly and where is the line drawn?

A lot of it depends on if the copyright and trademark (this is not a patent issue) owners'' lawyers think you look too close. If your ship looks like a TIE Fighter then you may get a nasty letter.

How close your game can look will often depend on how vigorouly the trademark holder defends their rights. With a very few exceptions, most don't care if you use their stuff in hobby/educational pursuits.

But if you plan on making money on something like that, you should run it by a good copyright/trademark lawyer first.

[edited by - yspotua on February 10, 2004 11:59:39 AM]

Pretty much what''s been said. If you''re planning to sell the game you have a much bigger concern than if you''re just making it to test your own capabilities. I''ll guarantee you LucasArts will vigorously pursue any copyright issues.

Sticking with Star Wars as an example - let''s look at Battlestar Galactica. The only real difference between a Rebel X-Wing Starfighter and a Colonial Viper is the former uses a four-panel "X" design and the latter uses a smaller tri-panel wing design.

The point? They''re dissimilar enough that no infringement is taking place, but similar enough that a graphic artist doesn''t have to do too much work to create the latter from the former.

Change a wing design, cockpit design, fuselage, engine - just do some editing and you should be safe. Ditch the double-panel TIE fighter for, say, a twin ball-cockpit fighter?

quote:

---

Original post by EricTrickster


Sticking with Star Wars as an example - let''s look at Battlestar Galactica. The only real difference between a Rebel X-Wing Starfighter and a Colonial Viper is the former uses a four-panel "X" design and the latter uses a smaller tri-panel wing design.

The point? They''re dissimilar enough that no infringement is taking place, but similar enough that a graphic artist doesn''t have to do too much work to create the latter from the former.

Change a wing design, cockpit design, fuselage, engine - just do some editing and you should be safe. Ditch the double-panel TIE fighter for, say, a twin ball-cockpit fighter?

---

That''s what I am wondering right there?
Is it really legally enough to change a wing design, cockpit design, etc.
Does anyone have any copyright information, laws to back this up?

quote:

---

Original post by mx1

quote:

---

Original post by EricTrickster


Sticking with Star Wars as an example - let''s look at Battlestar Galactica. The only real difference between a Rebel X-Wing Starfighter and a Colonial Viper is the former uses a four-panel "X" design and the latter uses a smaller tri-panel wing design.

The point? They''re dissimilar enough that no infringement is taking place, but similar enough that a graphic artist doesn''t have to do too much work to create the latter from the former.

Change a wing design, cockpit design, fuselage, engine - just do some editing and you should be safe. Ditch the double-panel TIE fighter for, say, a twin ball-cockpit fighter?

---

That''s what I am wondering right there?
Is it really legally enough to change a wing design, cockpit design, etc.
Does anyone have any copyright information, laws to back this up?

---

This is a very gray area of copyright law, while I am not an attorney, I did do some research on this a while back and remeber the language being ''suffciently different''. Most of the time if the parties diagree on this issue, a judge decides what is ''suffciently different''.

If you are planning something like this I would suggest that you talk to an attorney.

Well, to try and answer your question...do you plan on selling the game? If so, than no matter how different your graphics look from say star wars x-wings, if the origianl author(s) of those models have reason to believe that you infringed on thier copyright, then they can take you to court and it''s all up to them to decide. You can even be sued for copyright infringement if you didn''t intend to copy their work. You can subconciously infringe on someone''s copyright and still be sued. My best advice is figure out what reason you are making something for. If it''s any of the following uses, then it will be covered under the "Fair Use" doctrine:
Educational: ie school projects, displaying with educational intent...

Religious ceremonies

Critique: you can critique something as long as you don''t use the primary body of work...

Non-Profit: I don''t think you belong to a non-profit organization...do you?

News: probably not news either...

Parody: if you want to make a parody of say a star wars game or movie or whatever, you have the right to under the Fair Use doctrine as long as it is "funny", but just what is funny is up to the courts to decide....<---That one can be kind of hairy

Government Use: you probably are not the government either

In short, you should read up on copyright laws and such before making the decision to be inspired...

Dan...

It is a breach of copyright if you:
- reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
- prepare derivative works based upon the work;
- distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
- perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
- display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work.

Taking someone else''s model and altering it slightly would almost certainly come under the heading of a derivative work. Similarly if you use a picture of an X-Wing as reference that would also constitute a derivative work - but the likelihood of someone being able to prove that would be slight.

As always the more important question is why bother taking the risk? If you copy something too closely the copyright holder may decide to take legal action. If that happens just getting a lawyer to answer their letters is going to cost hundreds of dollars even if no court action ever commences.

One final point is do you really want people to think of your title as just a rip off? How many lame Ed 209 clones did we see in games after the release of the RoboCop movie.

Dan Marchant
Obscure Productions (www.obscure.co.uk)
Game Development & Design consultant

One could argue that everything is somehow a derived from something else that previously created. Even "ed 209" was inspired by some old sci-fi movie I''m sure, so is RoboCop a complete ripoff? I don''t think so.

"- prepare derivative works based upon the work; "
If this is illegal than everyone is guilty in one way or another. Parodies must also be an exception to this..

There is a difference between being inspired by and deriving something from. However as you say the dividing line is blurred, which is why we have courts. They don''t enact the law as often as they interpret it.

Dan Marchant
Obscure Productions (www.obscure.co.uk)
Game Development & Design consultant