Well, from those links it seems that one of the main criteria is trying to missrepresent the origins.
For example, I am working at an X-Com inspired game. Now, the gameplay will be different, the art will be different, and the GUI will be different as well.
And I will clearly state that our game is inspired by the X-Com games, but we are in no way affiliated with them.
So they shouldn't be able to sue me.

Quote:
But if you read the Patterns of game design book which gameplay is really unique? people have played games since the beginning and most game play boils down to instances of typical game play patterns such as the the rock paper scissors paradigm. Its hard to put a copyright on that. Its the same as that guy that tried to put a copyright on "selling things on the web".

WTF?
You would LIKE game design to be protected? Then you'd never be allowed to create any game design, because, guess what, by this time most of the designs would be protected already.

No, what I'm saying is that it should be partially protected, as other forms of art are.

You don't say to an artist 'You can't use the colour blue because somebody else has', or to a musician 'That chord progression was used by so-and-so, best remove it'.

It would be quite reasonable for game design to have some components that may be used over and over again, whilst the gameplay derived from those is protected. In the case of rock-paper-scissors, I believe this would be design's equivalent of something that is now in the public domain, or for which the copyright has already expired (assuming the inventor did copyright it, that copyright would have expired hundreds of years ago).

And in case it wasn't clear enough before, I don't think that there should be as much protection for gameplay design - perhaps a period of, say, three years after the launch of a product, so that competitors cannot make use of stolen ideas immediately, but so that the idea can evolve after that time. The initial few years would give those developers who actually bothered to try new ideas a headstart, a period of time during which they alone reap the rewards of their efforts.

You really like it that the only changes between games these days are graphics?

Quote: Original post by Zild
It would be quite reasonable for game design to have some components that may be used over and over again, whilst the gameplay derived from those is protected.

Its all about the granularity of the game play... Could you give an example of what you would like to be copyrighted? for example something like rocket jump or like the mouse gestures in black and white?

Quote: And in case it wasn't clear enough before, I don't think that there should be as much protection for gameplay design - perhaps a period of, say, three years after the launch of a product, so that competitors cannot make use of stolen ideas immediately, but so that the idea can evolve after that time.

That is reasonable. however suppose you had a really fancy copyrighted gameplay but a lousy storyline; e.g. your game sucked but no one is allowed to improve upon that game for the next three years....which come to think of it.. is not that bad as it takes almost three year to develop a reasonable game nowadays.

Quote:
You really like it that the only changes between games these days are graphics?

Well the consoles change each 5 years but most of the games [sports] stay exactly the same ;-)

Quote: Original post by eelke_folmer

Quote: Original post by Zild
It would be quite reasonable for game design to have some components that may be used over and over again, whilst the gameplay derived from those is protected.

Its all about the granularity of the game play... Could you give an example of what you would like to be copyrighted? for example something like rocket jump or like the mouse gestures in black and white?

Neither. That's not what copyright protects. Copyright protects specific expressions of ideas. It would protect against duplication and redistribution of source code, binaries, sounds, and data files.

You patent processes. You might have been able to get a patent on mouse gestures, but it would be harder now with so much prior art. Given the state of the patent office, though, you probably could get it through.

You could trademark a distinctive rocket jump (whatever that is), if it is really distinctive. Action figure and animated characters are issued registered trademarks all the time.

You wouldn't really be able to use trade dress for either of those, unless people associate the thing with your product and nobody else's.

Quote: Original post by eelke_folmer

Quote: And in case it wasn't clear enough before, I don't think that there should be as much protection for gameplay design - perhaps a period of, say, three years after the launch of a product, so that competitors cannot make use of stolen ideas immediately, but so that the idea can evolve after that time.

That is reasonable. however suppose you had a really fancy copyrighted gameplay but a lousy storyline; e.g. your game sucked but no one is allowed to improve upon that game for the next three years....which come to think of it.. is not that bad as it takes almost three year to develop a reasonable game nowadays.

Again...
You can't copyright gameplay. Copyrights cover expressions of ideas, such as source code, binaries, sounds, and artwork.

Your exact story line is covered under copyright. The genre is not covered under copyright. Given the number of games with similar story lines, a person could easily claim that their story line is only similar to yours in terms of the genre.

If you patent a process specific to your game, then you get protection against other people using that process. Most game companies don't patent their gameplay.

Quote: Original post by eelke_folmer

Quote:
You really like it that the only changes between games these days are graphics?

Well the consoles change each 5 years but most of the games [sports] stay exactly the same ;-)

Not enough for copyright, patent, and trade laws.

Games that use specific trademarked elements, "Tiger Woods", "NBA", "NFL", "NHL", representations of famous people and players, etc., are protected by the owners of the trademarks. Since "Tiger Woods" is a famous mark (name of an individual), you have to get consent of that famous individual under most circumstances. It would be a little easier if your own name is Tiger Woods since you also have legitimate use of the name; A good example was "Mike Rowe" who makes software and legitimately released it under "MikeRoweSoft.com". For his own dinction and to prevent international legal battles, he changed his site to start using "MR Studios".

The genre of football, hockey, and other games is not covered under copyright, patent, or trade laws. Specific implementations and algorithms might be.

Thanks for the response, frob - there were some interesting points that I'm going to reflect upon (in private, then maybe further online). However, eelke_folmer and I are talking more in a hypothetical sense - the potential for application of some form of protection to gameplay design (along the lines of copyright, trademarks, patents and trade dress, but not actually any of those as they currently stand.

-You wouldn't really be able to use trade dress for either of those, unless people associate the thing with your product and nobody else's.

-If you patent a process specific to your game, then you get protection against other people using that process. Most game companies don't patent their gameplay.

These two points actually reassure me somewhat - you make it sound as though it might be possible to protect some gameplay elements even under the current system. Granted, most developers don't - but if they can, that strikes me as something worth knowing.

eelke_folmer, you asked what kind of gameplay features could be protected? Well, in truth I'm not sure - it's the kind of thing that lawyers would argue out, just as they currently do for patents and the like. Which isn't usually a good thing, I admit, but getting that initial, airtight definition is quite possibly going to be as expensive as a patent.

The mouse gestures could be a good example, though that may build upon the existing patents for pointing devices, if any still exist / have ever existed.

Perhaps protection of wider ideas would be needed? Such as:

"The player(s) move avatar(s) around a 2D maze in order to collect every instance of an item. Completing this objective will make the game proceed to the next level. One or more enemies attempt to catch the player, which will lose one of the player(s)'s lives. There are power-ups scattered around the maze that allows the player(s)'s avatar(s) to attack and destroy the enemies."

I guess that perhaps the idea would need to be implemented rather than just designed before it could be protected, with the design then clearly defined by a third-party - the aim being that no direct clones would be allowed, but a few cunning modifications could be added to the original idea to evolve it into something newer. Again, if such protection were to last for a shorter period of time, the net effect on the industry could be positive.

I'd be tempted to offer up a definition for a more modern game, but this has the same problem as modern patents - as games get more advanced, so would their definitions!

I have a question here. If I were to post some amazing code right now, and not give it any license notice, then would it legally be considered public domain?

Depends on the country you are in.

No it wouldn't. Publishing something doesn't make it public domain. However it does mean that people could use the concepts behind the code to recreat what you are doing.

Of course, it depends on the context too. For example, if someone (A) asks for advice regarding some code, and then someone else (B) posts the code, they would have a hard time to go in the court and ask for the original poster (A) not to use their code, or pay them some fee.