RISK on Google Maps Shut Down

mrokkam writes "Hasbro owns the copyrights for the game of Risk, as the guy who wrote the google maps based Risk found out. This was featured on slashdot earlier. However, he does not seem too discouraged and asks people to submit ideas for other games using google maps that will not have such legal wrangles." One thing this reminded me of is how cool Risk is. My office is now in its 3rd round... Africa will be mine!

Comments

First Question!

[MindStalker]

Where can I get a job in your office!

Re:First Question!

[SilentChris]

I actually briefly interned for the law firm that Hasbro uses. One guy had his office filled with toys (Mr. Potato Head and the like). In one corner was a framed check (lawyers often keep fake ones for memorabilia) of a $100,000 victory over some company.

Anyway, this was back in the day when the internet was still taking off. I was working on this guy's computer and, seeing I knew about them, he asked me "Are there any games online that are similar to what Hasbro makes?" Without thinking, I mentioned Download.com and all its shareware.

A couple of days later, I see him walking by with a huge stack of printouts -- screenshots of webpages. They were every little piece of shareware he could find that bared the faintest resemblance to a Hasbro title. He mentioned, "That was a great site you told me about." and walked off. A couple of months later I saw a number of those games disappear forever.

To this day, I'm kicking myself over telling him about it. Moral of the story: unless they're defending you, don't ever talk to a lawyer, even in passing.

Copyrights

[qbwiz]

I'm curious what Hasbro actually owns the copyrights on. They own the trademark on the name of the game, as the article says, and they own the copyright on the original game's rules, but do they own a copyright on any rephrasings of those rules?

If the game looks similar and plays the same, but does not have its rules phrased the same as the original game, is this a violation of copyright? I'm genuinely curious.

Re:Copyrights

[SirSlud]

What is important is that copyrights and trademarks be respected, otherwise there is no incentive to create boardgames that furthur human knowledge, culture, and society.

Imagine if we didn't have copyright law. Imagine a world without poker, bridge, snakes and ladders, blackjack, [insert one million fucking games better than risk, even tho risk does rule, here.]

I agree with copyright laws with limited term. I agree, even, with moderate trademark laws. I do not agree with anybody who suggests that the value of these laws to society at large increases with the magnitude of the legal strength they grant the owner.

Re:Copyrights

[codegen]

If the game looks similar and plays the same, but does not have its rules phrased the same as the original game, is this a violation of copyright? I'm genuinely curious

Two words:
derivative work.

Changing the name and changing the rules might be enough.I haven't seen the online version. But if you change the way results are calculated (instead of rolls of 6 sided dice) and change the resupply algorithm, it might be sufficient

Re:Copyrights

[Yartrebo]

IANAL, but ...

The copyright claim is probably a stretch. The title cannot be copyrighted, and merely formulating rules that are similar is not copyright infringement, though it is close enough for a lawsuit to stand on.

However, in these types of instances, trademarks cast a very wide net because of the anti-dilution clauses that were added to trademark law a few decades back. Judges often interpret the clause extremely broadly. The anti-consumer aspects of trademarks get their teeth from this, whereas the aspects of trademarks needed for a well functionin market, namely that one entity cannot pass off goods are being made by another, was very well handled by the older trademark laws.

Re:Copyrights

[bonkedproducer]

Speaking of copyright and whatnot - your sig should actually credit the late great Mitch Hedberg.

Re:Copyrights

[EvilFrog]

Here's the trick:

You can not copyright the rules to a game.

You can copyright the expression of the game— the artwork and the way the manual is written.

You can trademark the name of the game.

And most importantly you can patent a unique mechanic of a game.

I'm 99.9% certain the Hasbro does not own a patent on any of the mechanics used in Risk. They do however own the copyright on the board artwork and the wording of the rules, as well as a trademark on the name "Risk".

All you need to do in order to be legit in this case is to stop calling it "Risk".

Re:Copyrights

[tomhudson]

Ther is nothing in Title 17 that allows for copyrighting game rules.

You can't copyright the the actual rules of a game, only the documents you use to express those rules. IOW, you can copyright the form in which you've written them up, but that's it. Anyone is free to implement the same rules, using different text.

You can TRADEMARK a board design and the actual game pieces you make, but that's it. Again, anyone else is free to implement their version, using a different design and game pieces. I seriously doubt that Hasbro's version of Risk has an actual map of the world underneath (I have both the board and computer versions, and the world they show is NOT the real world,or even a decent representation of it).

In other words, Hasbro needs to to realize that the internet gives everyone the power to search here and get the facts.

If you'd rather read a summary about game law, direct from the government, go here instead.

The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.

Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.

Some material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game, or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container, may be registrable.

In order to register the copyrightable portions of a game, you must send the Library of Congress, Copyright Office, 101 Independence Avenue S.E., Washington, D.C. 20559-6000, the following elements in the same envelope or package:

So Hasbro can go fuck themselves. The guy should sue, as this was an obvious attempt at intimidation. They do NOT own the exclusive rights to RISK-style board games.

Re:Copyrights

[bigpat]

I don't think anyone could argue against hasbro's use of the trademark. He just can't call it risk. Although, just doing a simple trademark search comes up with thousands of other trademarks that incorporate the word "risk", so hasbro's trademark would be very limited in scope.

Really if the game is fun and well done, then it should stand on its own without needing to infringe on the trademark. And the rules need only be rewritten, if in fact they were taken word for word from the original. It might be good to throw in some variations just for fun.

Re:Copyrights

[FLEB]

Or, suck it up, shut it down, and try for a more original idea. Why not aspire to a new original game rather than a technically-legal finagled version of something that already exists.

I commend the game's maker. There're so many, on both sides, who would spend more time fighting for rights in their old, dubiously legitimate creations than it would take to just come up with something new and better. This fellow's content to move on to bigger and better things. Someone should get this guy into Disney... they could use such an attitude.

Re:Copyrights

[tomhudson]

No, they don't own the trademark on the name of the game - nobody can. You're free to create your own game and call it risk: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.

So Hasbro just fucked themselves - hard - because now a million nerds know they can make their own Risk game, even call it Risk, and there's nothing Hasbro can do about it.

Ditto with Monopoly.

Let the Clone Wars begin.

Re:Copyrights

[tomhudson]

You CANNOT trademark a generic english word.

You might succeed in getting the paperwork passed, but it won't pass muster in court.

http://www.gcglaw.com/resources/tech/windows.html

The litigation over the Windows trademark highlights a distinction between valid trademarks that become generic over time -- "escalator" for moving stairs is a frequently-cited example -- and words or phrases that were generic from the moment of their adoption by the purported trademark owner -- for example, "raisin bran" for breakfast cereal made from raisins and bran.

The word "escalator" was a made-up word that lost its protection through the general public using it for all sorts of "moving stairs", but it was initally a valid trademark. Windows never was - and it cost Microsoft $20 million to make Lindows go away rather than have a judge rule against them.

YOu can make a raisin bran cereal and call it "schon's Raisin Bran" - Kelloggs can't come after you. As long as you include YOUR name, to differentiate it from their product, you're okay. So, you can use the name Risk - its only trademarked in conjuction with Hasbro, in the sense of "Hasbro Risk", "schon's Risk" would NOT be an infringement, as Risk is NOT a "made-up" word, but a generic word from everyday english.

Hasbro can go fuck themselves. I have 4 copies of the Risk board game, plus the computer game - but they'll never see another penny from me. This was all bullshit. I also have a lot of their other games - but no more. And they can forget about the xmas gift-giving as well.

Re:Copyrights

[tomhudson]

Just a few quick notes: Hasbro only recently tried to claim that the name Risk is copyrighted. I have a pre-2003 game, and they only claim trademark and/or copyright protection on Hasbro and Parker Brothers in that one.

On a more recent version, they claim trademark and/or copyright on Hasbro, Parker Bros, and RISK (all capitals). They do NOT claim trademark in either case on "Risk", only the stylized "RISK". Big difference in trademark law, but even then, they make a mistake. They also clame copyright on the rules, and the rules are not, by law, copyrightable, only the particular text used in their version.

My guess - someone was looking to try to expand their claims, 40 years after the fact. RISK has been around for a LONG time.

As I pointed out elsewhere, generic terms are not trade-markable on their own, only in connection with the company name.

Microsoft found this out the hard way with ther failed action against Lindows.

To be fully proof from misuse by others IN THE SAME FIELD, it has to be a "made-up" word - one that you can then claim uniqueness for your product. For example, if I make a new OS, and I call it the "redoxical", since the term "redoxical" doesn't exist before I coin it and apply it to MY product, it is protected. If on the other hand, I call it a "Windows" cOS, since windows isn't a "made-up" term, I do not get to claim exclusive use - only use with MY version.

Hence, "Microsoft Windows:" is protected, but "Windows" as the term for an operating system is not. It cost Microsoft $20 million to get Lindows to walk away from that one, and the judge had already stated his doubts that Microsoft would succeed. That's why Microsoft will pay up every time rather than go to court. They screwed up when they picked the name, and used a generic term.

This is also why IBM couldn't go after Sony over the PS2, even though IBM had already created their line of computing devices a decade earlier using the same name. PS2 is not distinct enough to be considered fully trademarkable. It thus enjoys protection only when used in conjunction with the company name - "IBM PSS" vs "Sony PS2"

Its also why Intel had to invent the "Pentium" brand - you can't copyright a term like "586". Generic.

Heck, even the X-Box is on shaky ground - any computer running X Windows back in the days when the console was the norm, would be referred to as an "X Box". Thats what I was calling them, and I'm sure I wasn't alone.

Re:Copyrights

[teknomage1]

I appreciate your humorous post, but I hope people remember that most of those games ere all created before copyright existed anyway. I was teaching at a summer camp recently and the kids were amazed that copyrights on things used to expire.

Re:Copyrights

[The One and Only]

You can not copyright the rules to a game.

Sure you can, just like you can copyright any other passage of text. It's just that the copyright only applies to your specific text and not to the meaning of the text.

So don't use the name RISK?

[mridley]

I never saw the original game web site, so I'm not sure exactly what it looked like. But as long as you don't use the name RISK and you don't copy, word for word, their rules out of the physical cardboard box that the game comes in (ie. don't infringe their copyright), then I don't see why you couldn't put this back online.

After all, what was that game - Tradewars? - that was exactly like RISK but I don't think anyone ever made an issue out of it.

-m

Re:So don't use the name RISK?

[yeremein]

The Hasbro bark letter seems to complain that "unauthorized use of [elements of R*SK] is likely to dilute the distinctive quality of the R*SK game" (can't be too careful here). It seems to me that Hasbro would like to imply that they own the m*n*p*ly (is that a Hasbro trademark too?) on all R*SK-like games, but all that's legally enforceable is the R*SK name and actual written rules. I agree that a R*SK-like strategy game that didn't actually use the name "R*SK" or copy its rule book verbatim (and I don't know whether the offending game did that) should be legally okay. After all, there haven't been any lawsuits in the video game industry, where every single FPS that ever existed is exactly the same as every other one other than the name...

Re:So don't use the name RISK?

[DrunkenTerror]

Global War, a BBS door game.

It's still around. You can download it here. You'll need a BBS to run it any way other than hotseat multiplayer. Or you could log onto any one of hundreds of BBSs that could be running it.

Litigious bastards

[plams]

Hasbro has a long history of suing amateurs who make games based on their games. I think they own a lot of classic arcade games too (e.g. from acquiring atari), so when someone makes, say, a Missile Command clone they also issue legal threats. Makes my inner baby cry.

Re:Litigious bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

yup, they tried a long time ago to stop a bunch of us that were publishing alternative rules to Risk. I.E. you hat to own risk and then add in our rules that were 100% origional to enhance the game. They sent letters we flipped them the bird by publishing all of the rules and giving out thousands upon thousands of copies at College campuses.

today I can find many of our add-on rules modified slightly and on the internet (mutually assured destruction Risk with nukes, and Alien attack Risk with having the green be aliens that are trying to take over the world... required 2 sets of risk pieces to give the aliens overwhelming forces, and the only way to win was to contain the alien beachhead from the very beginning.)

Their lawyers told me and the around 15 scattered friends around the globe that we were not to distribute the rules and we were to destroy them. WE did the opposite, instead of selling the 5 photocopied sheets for $0.50US we gave them to everyone everywhere.

The only answer is to do what they do not expect and go against their demands, that is the only way to deal with the scum that are lawyers.

Obligatory Seinfeld Quote

[dancingmad]

One thing this reminded me of is how cool Risk is. My office is now in its 3rd round... Africa will be mine!

Jerry: "A game of world domination played by two people who can barely run their own lives!"

I kid, I kid!

Idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

asks people to submit ideas for other games using google maps that will not have such legal wrangles

Um... turn the Google Maps upside-down and call it "Ksir"?

"The game of conquest in weird superman's world!"

Great idea!

[StringBlade]

We'll call it "Imperil" and it'll take place on Pangea with toops of dinosaurs and other pre-historic species of animals trying to take over the world before it breaks apart.

Re:Great idea!

[tomhudson]

It's not even a question of "fair use".

The law doesn't provide protection, either under copyright or under trademark, for generic words. For example, Windows is not a trademark of Microsoft. They learned that lesson the hard way, and it cost them $20 million to avoid hearing a judge say that (google Microsoft Lindows)

Trademark protection only is valid for non-generic, coined terms, and even then it can be lost by neglect, or adoption by the public as a generic (Escalator is a good example). But you can NOT trademark a term such as "Raisin Bran" and expect to win in court. Kelloggs can't sue Post, because only the terms "Kelloggs Raisin Bran" or "Post Raisin Bran" are protected, not "Raisin Bran" by itself.

So you can create a game called "kimvette RISK" and there's nothing they can do except bluster and threaten.

Here's the actual letter they wrote:

Dear Mr. Hazen:

We are counsel for Hasbro, Inc. (.Hasbro.), the owner of the copyrights and trademarks for the famous RISK� game. We write concerning the online .Risk. game (the .Game.) that you have made available for use in conjunction with Google maps at your website www.ashotoforangejuice.com/gmrisk.html. Your Game appears to copy elements of Hasbro.s RISK� game and rules as well as its trademark. The RISK� game, including the rules, is the copyrighted property of Hasbro.

Translation: If this sneaks by your bullshit detector, I p0wn you. Hopefully, you won't check to see exactly what the law says ...

Of course, the law says otherwise - they do NOT "own" the rules The rules to the game of Risk are not protected by copyright:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.

Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.

... So much for that. Let's continue

Hasbro also owns the trademark rights to the RISK� name.

They may have a piece of paper from the trademark office saying that, but its unenforceable. You can no more trademark the work "Risk" in connection with a game than you can trademark "Windows" in connection with computers. Microsoft found that out, and it cost the $20 Million to get Lindows to walk away from Microsoft's own lawsuit. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Trademark is only enforceable on terms that are not generic - in other words, a word YOU make up, not one you find in a dictionary.

Your unauthorized use of the RISK� game constitutes copyright infringement in violation of 17 U.S.C. � 501. Your unauthorized use of the RISK� name also violates the federal trademark laws, including 15 U.S.C. �� 1114(1) and 1125(a), by creating a likelihood of confusion with respect to Hasbro.s authorization or sponsorship of or association with your commercial activities. Even if confusion were not likely, your unauthorized use of these elements is likely to dilute the distinctive quality of the RISK� game and trademark and hamper their ability to function as source-identifying marks in violation of 15 U.S.C. � 1125(c) and numerous state anti-dilution laws.

Translation: I'm throwing a whole bunch of legal shit against the wall, in the hope that some will stic

FreeRisk? Google Maps? Why not the Blue Marble?

[Lord Satri]

Couldn't there be a way to make a FreeRisk.org in the same way there is a FreeCiv.org? And thus, bypass legal limitations?

Civ IV can even use NASA Blue Marble tiles, I don't see why a FreeRisk or not-so-free Risk couldn't make use of NASA's Blue Marble data. It would be more beautiful than a Google Map basemap. Am I wrong?

Clearly, this is another example where IP impeds innovation...

Re:FreeRisk? Google Maps? Why not the Blue Marble?

[Rydia]

Yes, without this great evil, we would have an avalanche of innovative "taking someone else's idea and product and sticking it on the internet" innovation! I mean, it's not like IP law helps companies, inventors, and the economy (by making useful research/production profitable, by protecting ideas and by precluding problematic price wars with new products, respectively)!

But gosh darn it, we want this thing, and THE MAN is telling us that we can't have it unless we pay him money! That's unamerican!

Re:FreeRisk? Google Maps? Why not the Blue Marble?

[Ragesoss]

FreeCiv.org doesn't so much bypass legal limitations... it's more like the Civilization IP owners just don't think it's worth alienating so many fans of a relatively small genre. A lot of FreeCiv (it's based on Civ 2, is it not) are still going to buy Civ 4, while older Civilization games aren't exactly bringing in the big bucks anymore.

RISK has a somewhat broader base, and still finds its way onto toy store shelves all over. Alhough I'm not sure how the Google Maps version could hurt them (it seems like it would remind people of the joys of risk and push sales rather than compete with the board game version).

New Game To Play on Maps

[thpdg]

Monopoly.

One has to wonder

[Fahrvergnuugen]

how has Lux escaped the wrath of hasbro?

Variations

[plopez]

There is a variation called 'space 2440' or something like that which won a court case against Hasbro IIRC.

The map was different, the rules slightly as well. In addition to continents you had space and ocean colonies and more sophisticated pieces + rules. I found it more intersting than plain "Risk".

The name "Risk" itself is a generic term and as such, from what I understand of copyright law, cannot be copyrighted.

If he were to change the rules and call it 'Risk ' then he should be OK. Though Hasbro may win de facto if the game author doesn't have the resources or will to deal with lawyers.

A very good argument...

[squoozer]

... for why copyright terms should be dramatically cut. Far from increasing the productivity of gifted artists the current copyright laws seem to cause them to give up work after they have had one success. I'm not saying that artists shouldn't be compensated but 20 years, to me, feels like about the right amount of time to protect the work. It's long enough that no business will just wait 20 years for the copyright on a work to expire before publishing and it's not so short that the artists would struggle to reap their just rewards.

I remember playing Risk as a kid and it wasn't a new game then (my parents bought the set). How can it be right that it is still protected by copyright?. If copyrights were shorter Hasbro would no doubt have pumped money into developing new more exciting games.

Having said that I suppose there is no problem with producing a very similar game with a different name to get around the copyright problem. I suppose we should be thankful they didn't patent it :o). The parting thought is this though - there is a reason they call them board games and it's not because they are played on a board.

Re:Trademark

[networkBoy]

It is unnerving when you get one of those letters.
here's mine:
http://farmersreallysucks.com/cgi-bin/QAD_CMS.pl?p age=E1_First_Takedown.html
Anyway, my first reaction was "Oh Shit, Oh Shit, Oh Shit" then I took some time and realised that they were using baseless assertions, thus I got a little pissed. Finally I spent the next week looking up laws in US Title 15 and writing my rebuttal (the red text).
-nB

The problem here is not one of Copyright, but...

[Svartalf]

...one of Trademarks. While I'm not a lawyer, I am rather familiar with the various "IP" laws, being an inventor and an author of SF. Since the online Risk game used the name, the guy who wrote the Google Maps version had a problem with that part specifically- and Hasbro DID have a right to ask him to stop calling it that. The other claims of the elements of Risk are bogus since these are NOT really trademarkable, only Copyrightable. Since Copyright only covers the SPECIFIC implementation of an idea, they really didn't have a leg to stand on as this was a game, played on the Web that used Google Maps to render portions of the screens- NOT a board game like Risk is. The MAIN reason why the guy pulled it was one of not having the funds to put up a defense against the rest of the complaints Hasbro fobbed off on him. And, that's the biggest complaint I've got about how the "IP" laws are worded- the rich are the only ones that can actually use it or defend against spurious uses thereof. If you're a rights holder, you only have as much protection for your "IP" as you have cash to burn defending your rights. If you're not and aren't really infringing on things, you only have as much defense against unreasonable claims as you've got cash to burn defending your rights.

corporations can't see past the end of their desks

[ftide]

If Hasbro was smart they'd create a marketing division just for this guy's work and contact him about setting up a new element to the game with licensing.

But no.. They can't completely control this type of endeavor anymore so it's all or nothing.

Idea-expression dichotomy

[tepples]

Two words: derivative work.

Three words: idea-expression dichotomy. The rules of RISK, including the graph theoretic structure of the game board, make up a process, which is deliberately not subject to copyright (17 USC 102). If you express the same rules differently, then your work is not a copy and not a derivative.

Re:diplomacy

[gfreeman]

If you like risk, and have 4-5 hours to play, try diplomacy.

There's everything you need to know about Diplomacy here, including how to join an online game, and how to improve your gameplay.

Re:Not really a Copyright issue...

[Svartalf]

Upon a proper search of the USPTO database of Registered Trademarks, "Risk" for the board and computer game variants IS registered for Hasbro. However, there is no registration for the look/feel of the game pieces, etc. so that falls pretty clearly into the Copyright domain. Now, since the Web Risk[TM] game that used Google Maps to render the globe's details didn't really USE anything other than the game mechanics, doesn't specifically copy the verbiage from the game's rulesheet, and didn't appear to do anything else that might have infringed on Hasbro's "IP" rights, I reccomend that he consult a lawyer for certainty, strip out the Trademark Violation from the game, and tell Hasbro to go pound sand on the rest of it as it's not infringing nor is it a Trademark Violation at that point.

Who is responsible for this sort of stupidity?

[KonoWatakushi]

Is it the lawyers that companies keep on staff, actively trying to make themselves seem "useful," or is there really some bonehead at the company in a position of power who really believes that this is in Hasbro's best interests?

The settings for board games and online games are typically completely different, with very little overlap. You don't (typically) sit around at home and play a board game by yourself. Likewise, Hasbro doesn't even have a net capable product to offer. At worst, this would have generated more interest, and hence more sales of the game. Instead, they choose to pursue legal actions which will only anger people, and ensure that they will actively search for alternatives to their products.

While technically this wasn't an online multi-player game, such a version was rumored to be in development. I can't see that enough people would choose to huddle around a computer in this way to be any threat to their business. Certainly, if one likes to play chess, and has people available to play with, 99.9% of them would choose to buy a chess set.

Diplomacy

[sysrpl]

Ever heard of the game Diplomacy?

Re:er....troops

[Geno Z Heinlein]

Damn dyslexia my.

You might want to have the doctor run some tests for Yoda-itis, too.

Re:20% additional copyright is NEW copyright

[cpt kangarooski]

LOL. In fact, courts don't care how much new material there might be in an infringing work, they only care about the part that is infringing, even if it were only one hundreth of a percent of the new work. Adding lots of stuff is irrelevant; taking lots of stuff is where you get in trouble.

copyright on rules

[pruss]

IANAL. But here's what I found by a quick googling:

"Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.

"Some material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game, or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container, may be registrable." - The U.S. Copyright Office (http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html)

Basically, from the copyright point of view, the guy would have been OK unless he copied the rules verbatim (or maybe close to verbatim) or he copied other parts of the game graphics.

By the way, I wonder if it is possible to sue people for providing false or misleading legal information when they ought to have known better? I am not saying Hasbro is guilty here--that depends on whether the rules were copied verbatim. Another example of the provision of false information are the warnings on DVDs saying that ALL copying is prohibited by law, which is simply false, since there is NO reasonable interpretation (though IANAL) of copyright law under which there is no such thing as fair use. For instance, it seems clearly legal to take a family photograph, for non-commercial purposes, with a TV playing the movie in the background (incidental copying, I think it's called). I wonder if one could get a class action lawsuit by people who were defrauded through the signage.

Re:Because you are modded 'Informative'

[maxume]

The name "Risk" itself is a generic term and as such, from what I understand of copyright law, cannot be copyrighted. If he were to change the rules and call it 'Risk ' then he should be OK. Though Hasbro may win de facto if the game author doesn't have the resources or will to deal with lawyers.

The name "Risk" is trademarked. This gives hasbro the exclusive rights to market a game with the name "Risk". This means that any substantially similar product (probably any game-like product at all fits the definition of 'substantially similar) cannot use the name "Risk" without the permission of hasbro.

Re:Copyrights (patents?) working for innovation

[saskboy]

"I think this is an example of copyrights doing a good thing for innovation."

I don't think so Tim.
It's an example of the opposite, because something new and innovative was invented, but because it wasn't invented by the right person, it will be killed instead of adopted. Just when you and school children thought it was safe to learn where Uzbekistan is, too...

Lux?

[karnifex]

How do shareware games like Lux (sillysoft.net) get away with selling a game directly based on Risk, and this guy - who isn't making a dime - gets shut down?

so....

[coolcold]

its a risk to call the game risk?

Re:Another game

[tomhudson]

You can't copyright a game. Neither the name, nor the rules. Only the unique graphics and pieces.

Here's what the US Copyright office has to say about it - and they should know http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

he idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.

Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.

Some material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game, or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container, may be registrable.

So make your Risk game, your Camen Sandiego game, yur Sim City game - you can even use the same name. All these attempted smack-downs by lawyers who should know better make me sick. No wonder Shakespeare said "first we kill all the lawyers."

Re:Another game

[bsartist]

So make your Risk game, your Camen Sandiego game, yur Sim City game - you can even use the same name.

Actually, "Risk" is a trademark, so he couldn't use that name. That's what got him in trouble - if he'd called it by any other name, and made sure to use his own description of the rules and mechanics, and his own artwork, he wouldn't be in trouble right now.

All these attempted smack-downs by lawyers who should know better make me sick.

Lawyers in general make me sick... but they didn't really have a choice in this instance. Trademark is a "defend it or lose it" proposition.

Re:Another game

[tomhudson]

http://www.gcglaw.com/resources/tech/windows.html

The Ninth Circuit's dismissal of the appeal means that Microsoft will not be able to argue at trial that consumers today recognize "Windows" to be a valid brand of operating system proprietary to Microsoft.

The litigation over the Windows trademark highlights a distinction between valid trademarks that become generic over time -- "escalator" for moving stairs is a frequently-cited example -- and words or phrases that were generic from the moment of their adoption by the purported trademark owner -- for example, "raisin bran" for breakfast cereal made from raisins and bran.

Risk was in the english a LONG time before Hasbro stuck it on a game. Anyone may use it in conjuction with a game, same as anyone may make a raisin bran cereal. and call it raisin bram. Kelloggs Raisin Bran vs Post Raisin Bran. Hasbro Risk vs Your Risk.

Trademarks are subject to dilution. Hasbro isn't in connection with a game company. That's their business name. Risk is - its not their name, its the name of a product, and as such, enjoys a LOT less protection. The Reg had an interesting article on how trademarks get diluted. In this case, Risk isn't even a trademarkable word - its a generic english term. Same with Windows. Remember how Microsoft backed down and paid Lindows $20 million to go away when the issue looked like it was going to go before a judge?

http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2002-all/isenberg- 2002-04-all.html

The current dispute, which Microsoft brought against Lindows.com, already has backfired against the software giant. In March, a federal district judge in Seattle denied Microsoft's request for a preliminary injunction preventing Lindows.com from using its trademark, which Microsoft said violated its own rights to the Windows trademark. In doing so, the judge said the case raised "serious questions" about the validity of the Windows trademark.

Here's why: An elementary principle of trademark law says that generic terms cannot be protected. So, for example, no company could obtain trademark rights to the word "computer" to describe what we all know as a computer. As the judge in the ongoing Lindows case explained: "when a trademark's primary significance is to describe the type of product rather than the producer or source, the mark is a generic term." Generic terms can be used by anyone.

Here's another way of looking at it: If you can't think of any other term to describe a product, that term probably is generic. So, ask yourself this question: What term could the maker of a windows-based user interface (such as Lindows.com) use, other than "windows," to describe its product? If you can't think of one, then windows just might be generic.

As a result, if "Windows" is generic for graphical user interfaces, then Microsoft cannot prevent anyone else from using that mark -- or a similar mark, such as "Lindows."

Hasbro better not roll the dice on this one - the defenders dies are all 6s to their snake-eyes

Other games we could play

[Adelle]

How about chess? Or thermonuclear war?

Solutions ???

[dr.Flake]

So, one can't trademark /copyright the word "RISK", but the poor chap can't "risk" it.

But if we open source it, on a server deeply burried in China...

Make some really poor chap over there sys-admin, with no known adres/phonenumber

Call it "ZIMOR" (Zimor Is NOt Risk ) or something GNU like that....

Should keep the lawyers busy for a while.

TEG

[Tycho]

Personally, I like TEG better than Risk anyway. I think that TEG is better because it has some small tweaks that make the rules more balanced rules than Risk. I also like how the default world map is divided and connected in TEG as compared to how the map is divided and connected in Risk. Best of all a free client and server for TEG is available at http://teg.sourceforge.net/

Deathtrap

[CmdrDawgface]

Africa is a deathtrap. Get out now.

Re:Trademark

[tomhudson]

The do NOT own a valid trademark to the name "Risk" - only to "Hasbro Risk". You can't trademark an existing term, only terms you either created specifically for your product ("For example - "Triominoes" would stand on its own, because it was coined specifically for a game), or a generic term in use with a unique identifier, such as "Hasbro Risk"

Same thing with car companies - Pontiac didn't come up with the term "GTO" - they took it from the Ferarri GTO - but they were allowed to because "Pontiac GTO" is not the same, even though they both refer to cars.

Same thing with Raisin Bran. Kelloggs doesn't own the trademark to it - which is why you see "Post Rasin Bran" and "Kelloggs Raisin Bran". You can't claim trademark to a pre-existing term all by itself.

Look at the smackdown Microsoft got for trying to claim that "Windows", by itself, was their exclusive trademark. Cost them $20 million to find out that they didn't want to go there.

They have no more right to the term "RisK" by itself as a board game name than anyone else.

BTW - dig up a copy of Risk - I've got versions from 2003 and last yer. The 2003 one only mentions "Hasbro" and "Parker Brothers" as trademarks. This is a case of someone trying to expand their trademark pool. It's bogus.

On a side note, that they have now stipulated in a legal notice that "Hasbro Risk" isn't sufficient to differentiate their product in the consumers mind, that they need to be able to expand their title claims to all uses of "Risk" in conjunction with a board game, indicates that the term Risk in conjunction with territorial conquest board games has in fact become generic - a stipulation that I am quite happy to accept.

What poor sports.

[tivoKlr]

It's not like this guy was making money off of his idea. And the creativity to get this to work.

Mostly, I was out of town all weekend and unable to try it and I really was looking forward to playing.

Re:Hasbro not necissarily evil

[damsa]

It's not copyright, it is trademark law. They don't want Risk to become a generic name for a world domination game. That way when you buy a Risk game you know what kind of rules it comes with. The Yo Yo used to be a trademarked term as well.

Re:Another game

[mdwh2]

The point about Windows wasn't just that it was a generic word, but that it was a generic word *which had meaning in that market* - ie, "window" was already commonly used to refer any window in a GUI.

If window had never been used in the context of a GUI before, then it's possible the case may have been done differently. I mean, do you think another company would get away with calling themselves "Apple", and selling computers?

"Risk" being a generic word surely isn't enough to mean it can't be trademarked - I would say the question is whether this term already has a specific meaning in the context of board games. It's possible you may end up being right and a court may rule that it isn't a valid trademark, but I wouldn't be sure simply because it's a word in the English language.