Quote: Original post by Obscure

Quote: Original post by mikeman
On another note, it's funny how those fan games always get a horde of artist people to help, while original projects struggle...

It's easier to copy than to create.

amen brother.

>>That's not how it works. They would have to modify all infringing elements, which in this case means basically the entire game.<<

Who knows what is required by law

there have been 1000(*) games that are essentially clones
Is there been ONE successful case in law where the plaintiff has won?
Sure from these 100,000(**). ok from these previous million games has a single plaintive won in court
If none have then I think what I said previously is valid

Quote: TTC drew attention in the late 90s when it attempted to remove every freeware and shareware version of Tetris from the market by sending out cease-and-desist letters claiming both trademark and copyright infringement. Creators of Tetris clones determined that the company has no valid legal basis to claim rights to any tetromino game that does not infringe on the Tetris name trademark, since copyright "look-and-feel" suits have not stood up in court in the past (Lotus v. Borland), and because the letters made no patent claims.

(*)scrub that make it 10,000 or 100,000 :)
(**)actually make that 1,000,000 hell everyman + his dog has made a spaccie or breakout or tetris clone

BTW in case I give a wrong impression. I prefer to create then redo, doesnt matter what medium games,music whatever

Quote: Original post by zedz
Who knows what is required by law

A lawyer knows.

At the end of the day, if you don't have tens of thousands of dollars lying around to fight a lawsuit, then it really doesn't matter whether you're "right" or "wrong".

I think this link is appropriate considering the discussion:

Activision shuts down The Silver Lining (King's Quest remake)

Y.

Quote: Original post by Ysaneya
I think this link is appropriate considering the discussion:

Activision shuts down The Silver Lining (King's Quest remake)

Y.

This type of thing always confused me. Why spend eight years working on a game that doesn't belong to you, that you can't sell, and that you probably can't even use materials from in a portfolio or such. What a waste.

Why not simply 'take inspiration' from King's Quest. The intrinsic quality of the original IP material is dubious; as I understand they had changed the main character to someone completely different anyway. So why shoot yourself in the foot by claiming any relationship with another company's IP? I figure it has something to do with built in fanbase and a lack of creativity on the part of those developing/directing.

It's an adventure game, with castles and wizards. They could have called it "Castles and Wizards" and never told anybody it had anything to do with King's Quest.

From that Kings' quest thread:

Quote:
To the people wondering if Activision-Blizzard can do this...legally, I'm afraid they can. The contract the TSL-team went into with VU a few years ago could be terminated by either party at any time.

HAHAHAHA !!

I mean come on, who the fuck would be so dumb to actually sign such a contract and then seriously believe to have been granted a license they can rely on ? Ugh. I have no idea how good their project technically was, but seriously, they really had it coming there. If one is dedicating eight years of free time to a single project, then one could at least read through the contracts with a minimum of common sense, or get some basic legal advice. Even a cheapo lawyer could've told them that there is a serious issue with that 'contract' after looking at it for two seconds.

People who have a minimum of common sense are not the people who do this type of work. The people making "fan games" are basically idiots who might be technically competent, but are still pretty goddamn stupid when it comes to everything else. And that's exactly why the people making this Outcast sequel are also morons.

Plus, I have zero respect to begin with for people who can't do better than to rip off someone else's IP.

Yeah, good point.

Quote: Original post by Yann L
I mean come on, who the fuck would be so dumb to actually sign such a contract and then seriously believe to have been granted a license they can rely on ?

Actually 99.9% of commercial licenses have an approval clause which would allow the IP owner to refuse publication of a licensed title if it didn't meet their quality standards. Luckily their "quality standards" lean quite heavily towards "will make us some cash" so it is very rare for IP owners to prevent release.

Obviously, in a case like TSL where their is no direct commercial gain an IP owner will want to ensure that a product is of suitable quality so as not to damage the IP and that it also meets with their strategic company needs. Obviously TSL didn't meet Activision's strategic company needs and so they shut it down.

Tragic waste of effort. Should have done something original.

Quote: Original post by Obscure

Quote: Original post by Yann L
I mean come on, who the fuck would be so dumb to actually sign such a contract and then seriously believe to have been granted a license they can rely on ?

Actually 99.9% of commercial licenses have an approval clause which would allow the IP owner to refuse publication of a licensed title if it didn't meet their quality standards. Luckily their "quality standards" lean quite heavily towards "will make us some cash" so it is very rare for IP owners to prevent release.

Well yes, but in a normal commercial scenario, the people working on the title are paid for their work. Financially, they don't really care if the title isn't published, unless they are shareholders. Also note that in normal contracts, exit clauses are well defined. Quality standards aren't arbitrary, the publisher can't just refuse publishing because the new management suddenly doesn't like the colour of the 3D grass anymore. The developer invested a lot of money in this, after all. In the movie industry, for example, it is common that the IP holder signs off a usage license for a certain project/script, but loses the right to refuse publication. The investment on the side of the production is just too big to risk having the IP owner just say "uh, no guys" when everything is done.

Anyway, the real killer here is the fact that either party could terminate the contract at any time, apparently unconditionally. A contract with such a clause isn't worth the paper it's printed on, especially if only one party really gains something from it.