Is it possible to turn copyright a game idea?
by suddysud aka mrclean · in General Discussion · 08/20/2006 (8:57 pm) · 16 replies
Is it possible to turn copyright a game idea?
It seems as though people are free to completely copy a game. Basically make another Quake or another donkey kong. Am I wrong? Is it completely copyrightable.
Stephen
It seems as though people are free to completely copy a game. Basically make another Quake or another donkey kong. Am I wrong? Is it completely copyrightable.
Stephen
#2
08/20/2006 (10:40 pm)
I think what you are looking for is Intellectual Property protection, not copiwriting a game idea. For that I think you use trade marks (TM).
#3
Is there anything else that intellectual property protection would cover?
(I believe they would go after you for names too similar which would cause confusion in the market place.)
the only exception is if you start a completely different business using the same name like quake flowers.
But it sounds like the game concept is totally not protectable. The only thing protectable seems to be the name and artwork. Is that correct?
08/21/2006 (8:00 am)
Trademarks, it seems would only protect the name such as Donkey Kong.Is there anything else that intellectual property protection would cover?
(I believe they would go after you for names too similar which would cause confusion in the market place.)
the only exception is if you start a completely different business using the same name like quake flowers.
But it sounds like the game concept is totally not protectable. The only thing protectable seems to be the name and artwork. Is that correct?
#4
You can only copyright a whole game, artwork, books, or anything that you create. In fact, they're copyrighted automatically when you create them.
There is no copyright for an idea. You can't trademark an idea either.
You trademark the usage of a word or phrase. For instance, Pepsi has the trademark for Pepsi. Microsoft has trademarks for Microsoft and Windows. You can't create an operating system named Windows because Microsoft has the copyright, but you could create SOMETHING ELSE named Windows (for instance, an air conditioner) because that's a different usage of the word.
Even though you can't copyright ideas, there's not much point in worrying about it. No one's going to steal your idea. Everyone has ideas, and even the good ones are worthless. People don't pay for ideas - they pay for finished products. Finished products require ideas, but they also require alot of hard work.
08/21/2006 (10:25 am)
You can NOT copyright an idea or a concept. It doesn't matter whether it's a game, a movie, or anything.You can only copyright a whole game, artwork, books, or anything that you create. In fact, they're copyrighted automatically when you create them.
There is no copyright for an idea. You can't trademark an idea either.
You trademark the usage of a word or phrase. For instance, Pepsi has the trademark for Pepsi. Microsoft has trademarks for Microsoft and Windows. You can't create an operating system named Windows because Microsoft has the copyright, but you could create SOMETHING ELSE named Windows (for instance, an air conditioner) because that's a different usage of the word.
Even though you can't copyright ideas, there's not much point in worrying about it. No one's going to steal your idea. Everyone has ideas, and even the good ones are worthless. People don't pay for ideas - they pay for finished products. Finished products require ideas, but they also require alot of hard work.
#5
And what about Tetris? Their game idea was patented, and now they are suing everyone who make a tetris-similar game.
By the way, some game developers may try to scare you if you copy their ideas. When I have released my first game on PC - Fillers, I've got a call from Moscow. A person who called, asked me about my address and then I've got a e-mail from him that I have cloned his idea, and I must to remove game or he will sue me. I have made some consultations with lawyers, and they advised me to ask him what law I broke. I wrote him back, asking about the legal reason of suing me - and still waiting for the answer (I believe, 4 years have passed since that time :) )
08/21/2006 (11:06 am)
Steven:And what about Tetris? Their game idea was patented, and now they are suing everyone who make a tetris-similar game.
By the way, some game developers may try to scare you if you copy their ideas. When I have released my first game on PC - Fillers, I've got a call from Moscow. A person who called, asked me about my address and then I've got a e-mail from him that I have cloned his idea, and I must to remove game or he will sue me. I have made some consultations with lawyers, and they advised me to ask him what law I broke. I wrote him back, asking about the legal reason of suing me - and still waiting for the answer (I believe, 4 years have passed since that time :) )
#6
08/21/2006 (3:42 pm)
You cant patent gameplay mechanic, Tetris or not. There's quite a difference between sending out letters threatening to sue somebody and actually suing somebody. If you had Tetris-like gameplay AND title that sounds very much like "tetris", you could end up in legal trouble, though.
#7
A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a state to a person (the patentee, usually the inventor) for a fixed period of time in exchange for the regulated, public disclosure of certain details of a device, method, process or composition of matter (substance) (known as an invention) which is new, inventive, and useful or industrially applicable.
08/21/2006 (3:43 pm)
A patent is a completely different ballgame then Copyrights and Trademarks IMO.A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a state to a person (the patentee, usually the inventor) for a fixed period of time in exchange for the regulated, public disclosure of certain details of a device, method, process or composition of matter (substance) (known as an invention) which is new, inventive, and useful or industrially applicable.
#8
That was original, especially when the box was upside-down on a store shelf.
08/21/2006 (5:02 pm)
I remember a toy compagny with a construction bricks product they named 0931 :)That was original, especially when the box was upside-down on a store shelf.
#9
That was original, especially when the box was upside-down on a store shelf.
08/21/2006 (5:16 pm)
I remember a toy compagny with a construction bricks product they named 0931 :)That was original, especially when the box was upside-down on a store shelf.
#10
@Kostya: Tetris is still embroiled in lawsuits because its creator never secured or defended his rights. By the time he finally mobilized and tried to protect his rights to the game, it had been already been widely (and illegally) distributed by Andromeda, and licensed and re-licensed and sub-licensed to everybody under the sun. He's still trying to collect royalties, but the genie's been out of that bottle for a looooong time. It's a beautiful example of why you need to firmly establish your rights when you publish a game, and defend them vigorously.
@Nauris: Not completely correct. You can patent gameplay mechanics, as Sega is arguing in its lawsuit against EA and Fox Interactive. (They claim Simpsons Road Rage is a cheap knock-off of Crazy Taxi that infringes on their vague patent.
Personally, I think it's a load of crap, but it can be done, especially if you have sufficient money to back up your threats.
And that's the crux of the matter: it's not whether you're legally in the right or wrong in making a derivative game; it's how determined you are to defend it against lawsuits, and who can pay their lawyers the longest. If it's Indie Developer vs. Sega of America, my money is definitely on Sega.
That said, you can certainly create a new Quake or Donkey Kong, provided you modify or add elements that make it unique and clearly separate from the original.
With an FPS like Quake, Unreal, or any of Doom's other bastard children, that's mostly visuals: new textures, weapons, and HUD layout, and you've got a "new" game.
With something like Donkey Kong, you'd have to work a bit harder to distinguish yourself from the original, because the gameplay there was fairly innovative. If I were setting out to make a DK clone, I would avoid apes, barrels, and plumbers entirely in my design so as not to invite the Wrath of Nintendo. But there's nothing stopping me from creating a game about, say, a courageous mouse trying to rescue his sweetheart while leaping over cheese wheels thrown by a malicious cat. (Naming it Kitty Kong might be asking for trouble, though.)
08/21/2006 (6:38 pm)
@Steven: Well said!@Kostya: Tetris is still embroiled in lawsuits because its creator never secured or defended his rights. By the time he finally mobilized and tried to protect his rights to the game, it had been already been widely (and illegally) distributed by Andromeda, and licensed and re-licensed and sub-licensed to everybody under the sun. He's still trying to collect royalties, but the genie's been out of that bottle for a looooong time. It's a beautiful example of why you need to firmly establish your rights when you publish a game, and defend them vigorously.
@Nauris: Not completely correct. You can patent gameplay mechanics, as Sega is arguing in its lawsuit against EA and Fox Interactive. (They claim Simpsons Road Rage is a cheap knock-off of Crazy Taxi that infringes on their vague patent.
Personally, I think it's a load of crap, but it can be done, especially if you have sufficient money to back up your threats.
And that's the crux of the matter: it's not whether you're legally in the right or wrong in making a derivative game; it's how determined you are to defend it against lawsuits, and who can pay their lawyers the longest. If it's Indie Developer vs. Sega of America, my money is definitely on Sega.
That said, you can certainly create a new Quake or Donkey Kong, provided you modify or add elements that make it unique and clearly separate from the original.
With an FPS like Quake, Unreal, or any of Doom's other bastard children, that's mostly visuals: new textures, weapons, and HUD layout, and you've got a "new" game.
With something like Donkey Kong, you'd have to work a bit harder to distinguish yourself from the original, because the gameplay there was fairly innovative. If I were setting out to make a DK clone, I would avoid apes, barrels, and plumbers entirely in my design so as not to invite the Wrath of Nintendo. But there's nothing stopping me from creating a game about, say, a courageous mouse trying to rescue his sweetheart while leaping over cheese wheels thrown by a malicious cat. (Naming it Kitty Kong might be asking for trouble, though.)
#11
Any game that is released that has any vaque similarity to Mickey Mouse, for example, using both the likeness and the general personality and quirks, would bring about a valid lawsuit in which Disney would win -- regardless of whose lawyers have a bigger money pot to pull from.
I also believe that creating a game that is so similiar, such as in a Donkey Kong clone that uses a big Ape, Barrels and Plumbers, is cause for yet another valid legal battle in which the originator would win the suit, regardless of each sides 'pot of gold'. Even if the game was a new concept, and used the same characters, so as to 'ride the wave' of the previous release ... your asking for trouble ... and most of it is almost certainly valid legal suits where the originator will win, yet again, regardless of the size of your pocket.
This has been my understanding for quite some time, I've even consulted with a few people who handle software copyrights and other such things and they've agreed that it's a big waste of time to "duplicate" something regardless of how vaque the duplication is ...
Now, as John said, a game with a mouse and a cat ... you could possibly be asking for trouble with this, but it might be far enough out of the general scope that it would not cause attention ... though if your game were to make millions, be sure that the originator of Donkey Kong will have his/her lawyers knocking on your door very quickly ... you could possibly win the suit, if your game uses unique level designs that distinguish it from the original, but if your cat and mouse game has the same 'tree climbing' and 'support beam traversing' levels ... your sure to lose alot of money...
08/21/2006 (9:06 pm)
As for Donkey Kong clones, the Donkey Kong character is Trade Marked, if I remember correctly, as is Mickey Mouse and other cartoon characters ... Any game that is released that has any vaque similarity to Mickey Mouse, for example, using both the likeness and the general personality and quirks, would bring about a valid lawsuit in which Disney would win -- regardless of whose lawyers have a bigger money pot to pull from.
I also believe that creating a game that is so similiar, such as in a Donkey Kong clone that uses a big Ape, Barrels and Plumbers, is cause for yet another valid legal battle in which the originator would win the suit, regardless of each sides 'pot of gold'. Even if the game was a new concept, and used the same characters, so as to 'ride the wave' of the previous release ... your asking for trouble ... and most of it is almost certainly valid legal suits where the originator will win, yet again, regardless of the size of your pocket.
This has been my understanding for quite some time, I've even consulted with a few people who handle software copyrights and other such things and they've agreed that it's a big waste of time to "duplicate" something regardless of how vaque the duplication is ...
Now, as John said, a game with a mouse and a cat ... you could possibly be asking for trouble with this, but it might be far enough out of the general scope that it would not cause attention ... though if your game were to make millions, be sure that the originator of Donkey Kong will have his/her lawyers knocking on your door very quickly ... you could possibly win the suit, if your game uses unique level designs that distinguish it from the original, but if your cat and mouse game has the same 'tree climbing' and 'support beam traversing' levels ... your sure to lose alot of money...
#12
It has been proven in court (a couple of decades ago, even) that you can protect "Look and Feel" in a computer game as part of your intellectual property. If Joe Beercan could be confused as to whether he was playing the original or a clone, then the clone is in violation and could be forced to pay damages.
Of course, a costly lawsuit alone can be enough to bury you, even if they can't prove you copied Look & Feel, so even breathing the same air as someone like Microsoft or Nintendo could be dangerous. So it really depends on who you are "borrowing" from. And it doesn't take much for them to issue you a Cease & Desist. All they have to do is convince a judge that there's a reasonable probability that you are violating their intellectual property. If you call your game "Quake" and it looks and plays like Quake, I think most judges would be unsympathetic towards you.
And if you violate a Cease & Desist, you are opening yourself up to all kinds of other legal woes. I don't know if it'd be "contempt of court" or anything, but you'd want to consult a lawyer before opening yourself up to that kind of hurt.
Technically, you can't protect an idea, but that doesn't stop big software companies from patenting every single suggestion coming out of an employee's mouth around the water cooler. The poor patent clerks know diddley about software, apparently, so with the right lawyers drafting the document you could probably patent the idea of breathing. See the notes concerning lawsuits to see why that'd be valuable even if it's something that they know would be shot down under scruitiny of experts.
All they have to do is extort you for less money then it would cost you to legally defend yourself.
What does that mean to YOU as an indie developer?
Well, if you are gonna clone someone - just out-and-out copy 'em - expect to get a Cease & Desist if you actually become popular in any way that could cost them money. It doesn't matter if you are making money or not - if it is suspected of hurting their bottom line and they can demonstrate to a judge that it is reasonably in violation of their I.P., then adios.
It happens ALL THE TIME. Even to indies who thought their fan-projects were so far under the radar that nobody would ever notice them. Even to indies (in this very community) who weren't even done MAKING their game yet, but were only showing screenshots and talking about a game-in-development.
As far as violating patents - dang, I don't know how it's even POSSIBLE to protect yourself in today's environment. Microsoft, Amazon, Nintendo, and others are scooping up patents as quickly as possible on anything even related to USING a computer or game console, and without a truckload of patent lawyers I don't know how you could protect yourself in theory. In practice, just steer clear of known patents and hope you stay under their radar. Unlike I.P. violations, it seems that they usually only sic their highly-priced legal teams against you on patent violation when they figure they can squeeze you for a piece of your obvious profits.
My advice: Don't do clones. Games inspired by other games are usually okay, but don't clone. Cloning rarely leads to happiness. Well, ALMOST NEVER.
Jay Barnson
Rampant Games
Tales of the Rampant Coyote
08/22/2006 (1:33 pm)
IANAL disclaimer.It has been proven in court (a couple of decades ago, even) that you can protect "Look and Feel" in a computer game as part of your intellectual property. If Joe Beercan could be confused as to whether he was playing the original or a clone, then the clone is in violation and could be forced to pay damages.
Of course, a costly lawsuit alone can be enough to bury you, even if they can't prove you copied Look & Feel, so even breathing the same air as someone like Microsoft or Nintendo could be dangerous. So it really depends on who you are "borrowing" from. And it doesn't take much for them to issue you a Cease & Desist. All they have to do is convince a judge that there's a reasonable probability that you are violating their intellectual property. If you call your game "Quake" and it looks and plays like Quake, I think most judges would be unsympathetic towards you.
And if you violate a Cease & Desist, you are opening yourself up to all kinds of other legal woes. I don't know if it'd be "contempt of court" or anything, but you'd want to consult a lawyer before opening yourself up to that kind of hurt.
Technically, you can't protect an idea, but that doesn't stop big software companies from patenting every single suggestion coming out of an employee's mouth around the water cooler. The poor patent clerks know diddley about software, apparently, so with the right lawyers drafting the document you could probably patent the idea of breathing. See the notes concerning lawsuits to see why that'd be valuable even if it's something that they know would be shot down under scruitiny of experts.
All they have to do is extort you for less money then it would cost you to legally defend yourself.
What does that mean to YOU as an indie developer?
Well, if you are gonna clone someone - just out-and-out copy 'em - expect to get a Cease & Desist if you actually become popular in any way that could cost them money. It doesn't matter if you are making money or not - if it is suspected of hurting their bottom line and they can demonstrate to a judge that it is reasonably in violation of their I.P., then adios.
It happens ALL THE TIME. Even to indies who thought their fan-projects were so far under the radar that nobody would ever notice them. Even to indies (in this very community) who weren't even done MAKING their game yet, but were only showing screenshots and talking about a game-in-development.
As far as violating patents - dang, I don't know how it's even POSSIBLE to protect yourself in today's environment. Microsoft, Amazon, Nintendo, and others are scooping up patents as quickly as possible on anything even related to USING a computer or game console, and without a truckload of patent lawyers I don't know how you could protect yourself in theory. In practice, just steer clear of known patents and hope you stay under their radar. Unlike I.P. violations, it seems that they usually only sic their highly-priced legal teams against you on patent violation when they figure they can squeeze you for a piece of your obvious profits.
My advice: Don't do clones. Games inspired by other games are usually okay, but don't clone. Cloning rarely leads to happiness. Well, ALMOST NEVER.
Jay Barnson
Rampant Games
Tales of the Rampant Coyote
#13
Microsoft vs. Apple and Borland vs. Lotus both came out , respectively, for the copycats, and the consensus is that you *cannot* copyright, trademark or patent the "look and feel" of software.
08/22/2006 (2:42 pm)
@Jay: I think you're wrong. Microsoft vs. Apple and Borland vs. Lotus both came out , respectively, for the copycats, and the consensus is that you *cannot* copyright, trademark or patent the "look and feel" of software.
#14
If that first paragraph is true, then the creators of Ratchet & Clank should sue the creators of Jak. To "Joe Beercan" they would look like the same game(unless it was Ratchet & Clank versus Jak & Daxter(the first one)).
08/22/2006 (3:57 pm)
@JayIf that first paragraph is true, then the creators of Ratchet & Clank should sue the creators of Jak. To "Joe Beercan" they would look like the same game(unless it was Ratchet & Clank versus Jak & Daxter(the first one)).
#15
The Apple vs Microsoft suit was more or less a lawsuit that had Apple won, no one would ever be able to create a GUI'd operating system -- Windows and Mac did not look anything alike, aside from the fact that they both had 'GUI' elements. No judge would have prevented that, because it would have given Apple a monopoly on Operating Systems had Microsoft not been allowed to release there competive version of Windows. Also, Microsoft worked for Apple just prior to this lawsuit and helped worked out alot of the bugs that were in the Mac OS before it was released -- therefore, some of that I.P. belonged to Microsoft in the first place.
As for the Lotus vs Borland issue, that wiki more or less gives a very valid reason as to why Borland won the case -- Borland did not 'steal' or 'copy' Lotus 1-2-3 they simply made there product easier to migrate to for users of Lotus 1-2-3 if they choose to do so. For this lawsuit, it'd be like AT&T copyrighting the placement of the buttons on a phone and then obtaining royalties from every phone manufacturer in the country who used the same thing.
I believe those were both poor examples of the 'copycat' winning, as they were not 'clones' or 'copies' but merely similiar in that they may have performed the same functionality or had the same general 'feel' to them ('feel' ... not 'look and feel').
Anyone whose ever used a Mac and Windows before can tell you that they are dramatically different, in almost every way -- even the original Mac OS and Windows OS were dramatically different --
08/22/2006 (5:28 pm)
@Tim,The Apple vs Microsoft suit was more or less a lawsuit that had Apple won, no one would ever be able to create a GUI'd operating system -- Windows and Mac did not look anything alike, aside from the fact that they both had 'GUI' elements. No judge would have prevented that, because it would have given Apple a monopoly on Operating Systems had Microsoft not been allowed to release there competive version of Windows. Also, Microsoft worked for Apple just prior to this lawsuit and helped worked out alot of the bugs that were in the Mac OS before it was released -- therefore, some of that I.P. belonged to Microsoft in the first place.
As for the Lotus vs Borland issue, that wiki more or less gives a very valid reason as to why Borland won the case -- Borland did not 'steal' or 'copy' Lotus 1-2-3 they simply made there product easier to migrate to for users of Lotus 1-2-3 if they choose to do so. For this lawsuit, it'd be like AT&T copyrighting the placement of the buttons on a phone and then obtaining royalties from every phone manufacturer in the country who used the same thing.
I believe those were both poor examples of the 'copycat' winning, as they were not 'clones' or 'copies' but merely similiar in that they may have performed the same functionality or had the same general 'feel' to them ('feel' ... not 'look and feel').
Anyone whose ever used a Mac and Windows before can tell you that they are dramatically different, in almost every way -- even the original Mac OS and Windows OS were dramatically different --
#16
On the other hand, the individual graphics, the implementation of the look and feel, logos, characters and other things used by the program *can* be copyrighted and/or trademarked. The techniques used in the implentation of the look and feel *can* be patented. However, the layout of things on the screen *cannot* be. You *can* make a Tetris clone, you *can* make a Pac Man clone, you *can* make a Doom clone, you *can* make a Donkey Kong clone -- assuming you use your own graphics that look different enough from the original graphics, soas not to infringe on the aspects of the game which do, in fact, fall under copyright, trademark and patent protection.
Ultimately, it isn't what *you* think, but what the *courts* think that matter, and they've come down on the side of copycats every time (although always with a whisper, never with a bang).
(Disclaimer: IANAL; as with anything in this type of discussion, you should hire a real lawyer and follow their real advice in the area in which you live).
08/23/2006 (5:45 am)
@David: You're making emotionally-based layman comments about law. I'm pointing out two examples: the first, for GUI design, the second for text-based menuing, both of which are "look and feel" lawsuits. Courts have routinely said that you cannot intellectually protect the "look and feel" of something.On the other hand, the individual graphics, the implementation of the look and feel, logos, characters and other things used by the program *can* be copyrighted and/or trademarked. The techniques used in the implentation of the look and feel *can* be patented. However, the layout of things on the screen *cannot* be. You *can* make a Tetris clone, you *can* make a Pac Man clone, you *can* make a Doom clone, you *can* make a Donkey Kong clone -- assuming you use your own graphics that look different enough from the original graphics, soas not to infringe on the aspects of the game which do, in fact, fall under copyright, trademark and patent protection.
Ultimately, it isn't what *you* think, but what the *courts* think that matter, and they've come down on the side of copycats every time (although always with a whisper, never with a bang).
(Disclaimer: IANAL; as with anything in this type of discussion, you should hire a real lawyer and follow their real advice in the area in which you live).
Torque 3D Owner Max