Stargate game halted
by Josef Jahn · in General Discussion · 12/17/2002 (7:18 am) · 64 replies
The freeware game Stargate SG1, based on the Torque engine will never be finished. Shortly before entering the public beta phase, the development team received a letter from an MGM attorney, demanding the immediate removal of all copyrighted material from the website. This is the end of this freeware game, and puts a big question mark on the various Stargate-MODs currently in development for Half-Life and Elite Force.
While we understand MGM's desire to protect it's intellectual property, we feel that this step only hurts themselves by killing valuable and free advertising for their products and the whole Stargate franchise as such. It's safe to assume that other fan-works based on the TV series or the movie will see their demise pretty soon.
As a rather dark side notice, the ISP hosting the game's website received a letter in which the attorneys demanded all personal information about the development team to be handed over, which the ISP refused. This is a rather disturbing twist.
While we understand MGM's desire to protect it's intellectual property, we feel that this step only hurts themselves by killing valuable and free advertising for their products and the whole Stargate franchise as such. It's safe to assume that other fan-works based on the TV series or the movie will see their demise pretty soon.
As a rather dark side notice, the ISP hosting the game's website received a letter in which the attorneys demanded all personal information about the development team to be handed over, which the ISP refused. This is a rather disturbing twist.
#22
Copyrights tend to stifle creativity. I'm sure MGM will put out a winner of a video game (sarcasm). I'd watch Troops ten times before watching Star Wars Ep. #1 again--and I love Star Wars.
--Eric
12/17/2002 (11:18 am)
I just saw this, which pretty well sums it up for me:Quote:
John Steinbeck: "Ideas are like rabbits. You get a couple and learn how to handle them, and pretty soon you have a dozen."
Copyrights tend to stifle creativity. I'm sure MGM will put out a winner of a video game (sarcasm). I'd watch Troops ten times before watching Star Wars Ep. #1 again--and I love Star Wars.
--Eric
#23
12/17/2002 (12:28 pm)
I just want to say (though am sure its been implicit before), that I too, and everyone, should mourn the fact that so much work and effort, will have to be re-hauled or discarded due to the copyright laws. I am all for whats legal, and respect to copyrights, but these guys were ignored in their requests to MGM, until, like they said, they became a "threat". THEN they become noticed.. [sigh]. While the copyright laws might be fair, and MGM's usage of them is legal, .. ignoring a request from your own fans wishing to make a homage game in your name (or the name of your product) for free.. letting them work their butts off only to shut them down in the end, .. thats something MGM could be ashamed of. Fan Art could be turned into something good for the copyright holders. Instead, they chose to shut it down.. its just disheartening. I guess, all am saying is: good luck to the team, may your modified game be even better than the original intent, and dont give up. Good luck.
#24
and if you send a letter/email/phone message and they don't respond and you go ahead you can at least say "we tried to ask... but you obviously didn't take us seriously".
12/17/2002 (12:44 pm)
personally I think if you are going to directly base a game (or any other work) off of an existing tv show, book, movie etc you should get the permission from the IP owner first no matter if it's free or not.and if you send a letter/email/phone message and they don't respond and you go ahead you can at least say "we tried to ask... but you obviously didn't take us seriously".
#25
Look at StarCraft or Natural Selection, the Half-Life mod. Both are heavily and obviously based on ideas found in the Alien(s) movies, but they added enough originality to not be 100% rip-offs and thus become lawsuit-fodder. Its not that hard to do! And putting an original twist on something never hurt anyone, so you should try to do that anyway.
12/17/2002 (7:48 pm)
Its not all quite the doom & gloom you guys are talking about. You can make games inspired by other people's creations if you don't completely rip them off and break IP laws. Look at StarCraft or Natural Selection, the Half-Life mod. Both are heavily and obviously based on ideas found in the Alien(s) movies, but they added enough originality to not be 100% rip-offs and thus become lawsuit-fodder. Its not that hard to do! And putting an original twist on something never hurt anyone, so you should try to do that anyway.
#26
<--- Has had 2 total conversions based off of certain movies for a certain game shut down.
12/17/2002 (8:07 pm)
I feel for you man.<--- Has had 2 total conversions based off of certain movies for a certain game shut down.
#27
Why MUST you use the names they own?
Why was this posted again?....
12/17/2002 (8:48 pm)
What is in a name?Why MUST you use the names they own?
Why was this posted again?....
#28
Did we violate copyright? Yes, we did. But why was this so "stupid"?
Think about all the Starwars and Star Trek games out there (Netrek, Troopers for EF, Starwars mod for Tribes, etc. etc. etc.) - they are all violating trademarks and infringing copyrights, yet nobody sues the authors of Netrek for something they did back in 1980. There are hundreds of fan-made games which are all available for free, made without permission from Paramount, MGM and whatnot.
Not enough proof? You still don't think that this whole copyright hype has gone too far?
How about this: P.C.I.
See? I just violated both a trademark and a copyright! Oh, Garagegames will certainly be sued just because I wrote these three letters (www.yourvote.com/pci/)
A long story made short: It's hard to feel guilty when you know that what you're doing had NO negative impact on the copyright proprietor's finances or reputation. It's a bit difficult to feel like the criminal they say you are while they didn't even bother communicating with you at all, when everything you got was a letter from their lawyer. If we had been selling the game and made a fortune with their intellectual property, then I'd feel guilty. But we did not, neither did we plan to.
For me all those "Oooh, you're so stupid! It's against the law!!" replies are, in a nutshell, not worth the bandwith they're using. The law is on their side, yes. But that's not enough to say who's "right" and who's not. After a lenghty discussion with their lawyer (who, I might add, did not even reply to me directly because he felt "unable to talk to two persons about the same matter") it came out that they were "afraid of us reducing the available market for MGM". Well, I'm afraid someone might rob my house, but that'd be no excuse to shoot anyone who stands on my doormat. Or maybe I should, because who knows what your *true* intentions are. After all, you might well be a robber in disguise. - I know, I was exaggerating now...
You'll soon find that you can't name anything after something else, because it's already copyrighted. Most combinations of letters will end up being copyrighted and trademarked too.
Remember the software "Windows Commander"? (www.ghisler.com)
It's now called "Total Commander" because the author received a "suggestive" letter from the brave Attorneys guarding the word "Windows" from being used improperly - that is: Other than for a product from a certain Redmont-located Company. After all, "customers may be confused".
Am I the only one who gets an uneasy feeling in the stomach at such "reasons"?
Now, I know that a TV series is more than the name and the logo. In terms of law however, there is effectively no difference between the two. Also, "Industrial" Intellectual Property weights more than "Personal" Intellectual Property. Now where's the justice in that?
As for Stargate, there's no question who is "right" in terms of copyright and trademark law. I also want to stress that we are COMLPYING with their demands, which some of the self-righteous nitwits emailing us obviously didn't have the clue for to find out. My opinion however is that we weren't doing anything unethical. We're fans of the show, and did what we did it because we liked it. Period.
01/17/2003 (5:27 am)
I feel the need to clarify a few things:Did we violate copyright? Yes, we did. But why was this so "stupid"?
Think about all the Starwars and Star Trek games out there (Netrek, Troopers for EF, Starwars mod for Tribes, etc. etc. etc.) - they are all violating trademarks and infringing copyrights, yet nobody sues the authors of Netrek for something they did back in 1980. There are hundreds of fan-made games which are all available for free, made without permission from Paramount, MGM and whatnot.
Not enough proof? You still don't think that this whole copyright hype has gone too far?
How about this: P.C.I.
See? I just violated both a trademark and a copyright! Oh, Garagegames will certainly be sued just because I wrote these three letters (www.yourvote.com/pci/)
A long story made short: It's hard to feel guilty when you know that what you're doing had NO negative impact on the copyright proprietor's finances or reputation. It's a bit difficult to feel like the criminal they say you are while they didn't even bother communicating with you at all, when everything you got was a letter from their lawyer. If we had been selling the game and made a fortune with their intellectual property, then I'd feel guilty. But we did not, neither did we plan to.
For me all those "Oooh, you're so stupid! It's against the law!!" replies are, in a nutshell, not worth the bandwith they're using. The law is on their side, yes. But that's not enough to say who's "right" and who's not. After a lenghty discussion with their lawyer (who, I might add, did not even reply to me directly because he felt "unable to talk to two persons about the same matter") it came out that they were "afraid of us reducing the available market for MGM". Well, I'm afraid someone might rob my house, but that'd be no excuse to shoot anyone who stands on my doormat. Or maybe I should, because who knows what your *true* intentions are. After all, you might well be a robber in disguise. - I know, I was exaggerating now...
You'll soon find that you can't name anything after something else, because it's already copyrighted. Most combinations of letters will end up being copyrighted and trademarked too.
Remember the software "Windows Commander"? (www.ghisler.com)
It's now called "Total Commander" because the author received a "suggestive" letter from the brave Attorneys guarding the word "Windows" from being used improperly - that is: Other than for a product from a certain Redmont-located Company. After all, "customers may be confused".
Am I the only one who gets an uneasy feeling in the stomach at such "reasons"?
Now, I know that a TV series is more than the name and the logo. In terms of law however, there is effectively no difference between the two. Also, "Industrial" Intellectual Property weights more than "Personal" Intellectual Property. Now where's the justice in that?
As for Stargate, there's no question who is "right" in terms of copyright and trademark law. I also want to stress that we are COMLPYING with their demands, which some of the self-righteous nitwits emailing us obviously didn't have the clue for to find out. My opinion however is that we weren't doing anything unethical. We're fans of the show, and did what we did it because we liked it. Period.
#29
See? I just violated both a trademark and a copyright!
No, writing that was not a violation of copyright, it is covered under the terms of fair use. Using it as the title of a game would be different though, not covered under fair use. There is a very definite difference between titling and designing a game after copyrighted material, and mentioning the name of the copyright material.
I do agree with you that copyright laws have gone too far.
Well, good luck with continuing your game under a different name, or whatever you plan to do.
01/17/2003 (5:39 am)
How about this: P.C.I. See? I just violated both a trademark and a copyright!
No, writing that was not a violation of copyright, it is covered under the terms of fair use. Using it as the title of a game would be different though, not covered under fair use. There is a very definite difference between titling and designing a game after copyrighted material, and mentioning the name of the copyright material.
I do agree with you that copyright laws have gone too far.
Well, good luck with continuing your game under a different name, or whatever you plan to do.
#30
01/17/2003 (5:43 am)
I agree with you on the mentioning of titles. Sadly, the lawyers of the PCI group don't seem to see it the same way.
#31
1) Your game could have sucked, and degraded the value of the stargate IP, especially as it pertains to games.
2) Allowing your game to continue severly curtails possible future game deals relating to the stargate IP, since publishers typically want an exclusive license to a given IP.
3) Your game could have actually been _REALLY_ good. Like, better than MGM's stargate game. Then, why would people buy theirs if they can get yours?
01/17/2003 (5:52 am)
How do you know it would have no negative impact? I can think of three ways your game could have negatively impacted MGM, and I'm not even trying:1) Your game could have sucked, and degraded the value of the stargate IP, especially as it pertains to games.
2) Allowing your game to continue severly curtails possible future game deals relating to the stargate IP, since publishers typically want an exclusive license to a given IP.
3) Your game could have actually been _REALLY_ good. Like, better than MGM's stargate game. Then, why would people buy theirs if they can get yours?
#32
2) You have a point, albeit a weak one. A TV franchise is rarely licensed exclusively to a single publisher and even those that are, are licensed for a limited time. The lawyer's point that "allowing one would mean allowing many" is completely untrue however.
3) If you can get a good game for free, would you refrain from buying a completely different game? Only if the other game really sucked. How can a free game take away market from a commercial game? You get the free game, so be it - but the decision whether or not to buy the commercial game is still depending on the commercial game's quality, no?
01/17/2003 (6:02 am)
Ad 1) That's highly hypothetical, isn't it? How do you measure the damage? Is it really that simple that people would go "Eww, this game sucks. Man, that show must suck even more." ? Who would judge that?2) You have a point, albeit a weak one. A TV franchise is rarely licensed exclusively to a single publisher and even those that are, are licensed for a limited time. The lawyer's point that "allowing one would mean allowing many" is completely untrue however.
3) If you can get a good game for free, would you refrain from buying a completely different game? Only if the other game really sucked. How can a free game take away market from a commercial game? You get the free game, so be it - but the decision whether or not to buy the commercial game is still depending on the commercial game's quality, no?
#33
And when they contacted you, what diod you reply? Did you actually gave them a reason not to shut you down? There are always backdoors, and even lawyers listen if you give them a good reason too.
Hoping to go by unnoticed was a stupid thing to do. What if they contacted you after a release, when all the work was already done? That would've been a great waste of time.
I had some copyright law courses at school...the first thing they learn is to always contact the IP owner and get their answers on paper (not email). Becuase of this its wise to not send an email yourself but write your request on paper and mail it. Chances are bigger it gets past the secretary and you get an offcial reply.
01/17/2003 (7:15 am)
You say you contacted them before. But how do you know you contacted the right person? How did you contact them? By email? If so, never make the same mistake again when you are talking about copyrights and other serious business. And when they contacted you, what diod you reply? Did you actually gave them a reason not to shut you down? There are always backdoors, and even lawyers listen if you give them a good reason too.
Hoping to go by unnoticed was a stupid thing to do. What if they contacted you after a release, when all the work was already done? That would've been a great waste of time.
I had some copyright law courses at school...the first thing they learn is to always contact the IP owner and get their answers on paper (not email). Becuase of this its wise to not send an email yourself but write your request on paper and mail it. Chances are bigger it gets past the secretary and you get an offcial reply.
#34
2) Yeah, the contracts are of limited duration, but my understanding is that they're usually exclusive. I know there have been cases where a company flubbed a film/tv/book license, and the owners had to wait until contracts expired before trying it again. I have no direct experience with these kinds of deals, though.
3) Frankly, if I wanted 'a stargate game' I'd only get the best one. My playing time is somewhat limited, so I don't buy/download everything that's available. In my experience, that's a common attitude. Since the value of an IP license mostly revolves around players wanting to play 'a stargate game' or read 'a stargate novel' this is a large concern to IP holders.
01/17/2003 (8:20 am)
1) No, more like an 'all stargate games suck' syndrome. It's happened to other licenses/genres before. One good example would be superhero games - these had a bad rep for a long time. DBZ games have also had this problem. Anyway, no one has to judge it. Just the possibility is enough to quash your project, because MGM would be taking on risk with zero potential reward.2) Yeah, the contracts are of limited duration, but my understanding is that they're usually exclusive. I know there have been cases where a company flubbed a film/tv/book license, and the owners had to wait until contracts expired before trying it again. I have no direct experience with these kinds of deals, though.
3) Frankly, if I wanted 'a stargate game' I'd only get the best one. My playing time is somewhat limited, so I don't buy/download everything that's available. In my experience, that's a common attitude. Since the value of an IP license mostly revolves around players wanting to play 'a stargate game' or read 'a stargate novel' this is a large concern to IP holders.
#36
First off, something you could do/have done (read in a designer post somewhere) is have made a decent demo to present to the authors (secretively), displaying your productivness as well as a working game, and asked for not only permission to work on it, but also for their assistance in it's design. If they had agreed, great, if they refuse, you simply disassociate the game with that theme, or start over with something new.
Don't forget, though you may have based it on the show, the copyright holders retain not only the pieces of the work, but the design as well, ie- story, and as such, the alteration of that story, etc.
As for MGM themselves, they seem to be a little too aggressive to have ignored you guys and then threatened to sue in the manner they did. That was undeniably rude IMHO.
And don't try any DBZ, they have reason to deny considering past games using the DBZ theme were failures (their opinion as well).
But if you do go that way, remember, have something to make them want you to do a game for them, and show that you want them to assist you in the design and story, and you might get a limited license:)
- Christopher Dapo ~ Ronixus
02/10/2003 (2:21 am)
Ok, here's my thoughts...First off, something you could do/have done (read in a designer post somewhere) is have made a decent demo to present to the authors (secretively), displaying your productivness as well as a working game, and asked for not only permission to work on it, but also for their assistance in it's design. If they had agreed, great, if they refuse, you simply disassociate the game with that theme, or start over with something new.
Don't forget, though you may have based it on the show, the copyright holders retain not only the pieces of the work, but the design as well, ie- story, and as such, the alteration of that story, etc.
As for MGM themselves, they seem to be a little too aggressive to have ignored you guys and then threatened to sue in the manner they did. That was undeniably rude IMHO.
And don't try any DBZ, they have reason to deny considering past games using the DBZ theme were failures (their opinion as well).
But if you do go that way, remember, have something to make them want you to do a game for them, and show that you want them to assist you in the design and story, and you might get a limited license:)
- Christopher Dapo ~ Ronixus
#37
02/10/2003 (2:28 am)
DBZ?
#39
02/10/2003 (2:53 am)
Why don't you release it on a file sharing network?? Change the things the attorney saw on your web site, release it on the "underground", and sit back and say "it wasnt me". Or you could mail copies to friends with no return address and include instructions to share it on some file sharing net - if you're worried about someone tracking your IP addy down. You dont get any heat and your buddies say they didnt make it and they didnt know it wasnt a licensed product. Oh but wait, you're probably not an a-hole to large corporations like I am, so never mind.... 
#40
02/10/2003 (9:10 am)
Nate, that sound an awful lot like wrapping your ass in a sling and handing it over to their legal department for Pinata fun time. 
James "Nycto" Frasca
We have also spoken with the leader of an SG1 mod that has far more work done on it than ours, and he has yet to see a letter from MGM. How can they be "protecting" their interests when they don't shut everyone down?