Slashdot Mirror
Blizzard Sued By Game Guide Creator
Gamespot reports on a suit brought by a game guide creator against Warcraft-maker Blizzard Entertainment. The two parties will be going to court because of an attempt by Blizzard to quash a guide the plaintiff created for the World of Warcraft MMORPG. Offered electronically through eBay, the company claims that the guide creator is infringing on their IP. From the article: "Kopp's complaint argues that his book does not infringe on any of the companies' copyrights for several reasons: The book presents a disclaimer on its first page about its 'unauthorized' nature, contains no copyrighted text or storylines from the game, and makes "fair use" of selected screenshots under copyright law, the complaint said."
Here's another person creating his own art based on the prior art of someone else. The copyright and IP laws make no sense to me -- why is it OK to protect the overall look of a game or the name when pieces of the game are taken directly from thousands of games before it? Why is it wrong for someone to use their own labor to make a product (even a direct knock off) and go and sell it?
I believe in true freedom and true competition. Both are what is best for the consumers in the market and the producers as well. If someone is willing to spend their own time and their own labor creating something with their own hands, I see no reason why the product shouldn't be allowed to sell. I personally tend to buy some items from large companies just because I feel I've gotten better quality products, but there are many items I won't buy from a big company because I prefer the unique feel of the item.
Intellectual property laws were originally created to protect artists and artists alone. Blizzard is not an artist, it is a co-op of artists. The idea that a co-op can have more rights than an individual is ridiculous -- individuals have rights, co-ops are just groups of individuals trying to market a huge variety of products together. Each artist at Blizzard has their own art they've created, and they should worry individually about making the best produt they can at the lowest price. That is competition.
Making a knockoff or a product that supports another is the best part of competition -- it gives the market a choice in goods of varying prices and quality, and it also allows others to make a product better by supplementing it with add-ons, upgrades, modifications and third party support services. Can you see Google suing someone for writing a guide to using Google? Wouldn't that guide give Google free marketing and promotion for their product?
Blizzard is run by MBAs, I guess, not artists. These "educated" businessmen don't see the value of free promotion; they should be taking advantage of this guy's supplementary art by promoting his product just as he's promoting theirs. They can both profit, and the consumers will walk away with the products they want at a price they're willing to pay. That is competition, and that is freedom.
The argument that invention and art would not occur without the force of copyright and IP is over. We see proof here that people can't create something based on previous work (as every work is) because the cartels with the power of the legal industry are the ones controlling the law -- the law meant to keep opportunities open, not close them off.
I don't think everything about the DMCA is wrong. But I do think that it has no boundaries and can be openly interpreted. I believe this Act needs to be reformed before it is renewed and that it should be better defined. The internet has developed far past our wildest imaginations and no act passed in 1998 could account for all the legal caveats of it.
I believe my hatred for the DMCA falls just under my hatred for the Patriot Act.
And that's saying a lot.
Hey, with the DMCA, anything's possible! Well, what do you say Microsoft? O'Reilly's got deep pockets!
My work here is dung.
attempts to trade off the substantial goodwill and recognition that Blizzard has built up in connection with its World of Warcraft product.
Yep. And it is perfectly within the boundaries of copyright law for someone to do so, provided they don't infringe on a trademark, create a derivative product or republish copyrighted material that is not a fair use.
From the article it sounds like this is a work of non-fiction, written to help people improve their knowledge of the game. It also sounds like "big company (that makes over $80M a MONTH in subscription revenue) uses copyright law as a club against entrepreneur." As long as all trademarks and copyrights are attributed, there's no infringement here. Sorry.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
Basically, if Blizzard became aware of this guy using the World of Warcraft trademark for personal profit (which he clearly did), then they are obligated by law to try to make him stop, or they lose their trademark.
Nope. If the writer attributes the trademark and makes it clear for his readers that he does not own the World of Warcraft trademark, there is no infringement, therefore there is no possibility that Blizzard will "lose" their trademark.
It is no different than if someone writes about McDonald's or Home Depot. Both are trademarks. As long as its clear who owns the trademark, there is nothing there.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
Owning a trademark does not mean that you own the words in the trademark. I can write about Blizzard and World of Warcraft all day without infringing on their trademark. I don't need Blizzard's permission to write "World of Warcraft" in a document. Trademarks are designed to protect the customer, not to be pieces of IP that can be used to abuse others in court. If I write a book, "How to win at World of Warcraft(tm)", Blizzard has no legal basis to interfere.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
I like WoW fine enough... but it was just a game to keep me interested while I waited for a single player RPG. You know... something with real content and playability.. Something designed around giving the player abilities rather than handicapping them.
I bought Oblivion and it was well worth it. Throw away those MMOs and play something with atmosphere.
Blizzard has been making some moves that make it look like one of those big ugly soul-less corporations that we all hate so much. I will be much more hesitant to buy any of their products. A company doesn't have to be open source for me to support it but Blizzard has become arrogant and unapologetic when it comes to its customers and the little poeple in general.
The Jackass who's filing this suit is one of those slimeballs that scrapes freely available information (the kind you can get from any number of free websites that do not charge for it) and packages it up so he can sell it for a rediculous fee.
Why anyone would by crap like that when you can just look it up on the web I have no idea.
Meh. I can download Shakespeare for free from all over the net. But I also bought a hardback collection of his work. Just because you wouldn't buy something is no reason to denigrate people who would, or people who create things for them.
And to be clear, Blizzard's not the one harassing in court here. It is the GAME GUIDE writer suing Blizzard.
Well apparently Blizzard kept issuing complaints to Ebay that resulted in the guy being unable to sell any of his guides there. So arguably they were harassing him out of court, and he's decided to go to court to protect himself.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I'm guessing that Blizzard has some kind of exclusive deal for guides through a publisher and is finding that competing guides violate their copyright? Could that be the case? It still doesn't make much sense to me though. I mean look at MS Office, there are dozens of books that teach users to use Office. Did each of these book publishers have to get permission from MS to produce it?
what? what I thought we were in the trust tree in the nest, were we not?
This guy is trying to make a buck, so be it. Mabey his guide is good, mabey it sucks but who cares? There is more at risk than just that.
As another poster pointed out TM does not apply here due to TM acknowledgement, but perhaps more relevantly, TM does not apply to DM C A cases because the C stands for copyright, not trademark.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
I've heard of this kind of thing happening before, actually -- a while back, Anne McCaffrey was squelching fan artists left and right, angry that people should even try to make money off illustrating scenes from her novels. The vast majority of authors (and other IP owners) habitually turn a blind eye to this type of copyright infringement, mainly because it benefits them, but the point is that they can put a stop to it if they want, and some of them have in the past.
this guy using the World of Warcraft trademark for personal profit (which he clearly did)
But trademark law doesn't prevent you from using another company's trademarks for your profit. It primarily protects against uses that dilute the value of the trademark. So "MS Excel for Dummies" can be published without a license from Microsoft, even though it (1) clearly uses a trademarked phrase and (2) is published for profit. You can even sell your own spreadsheet program and market it as "Better than Excel!(tm)" as long as you don't call it something that could be confused with "Excel" or "MS Excel" or... Basically, all you have to do is acknowledge the trademark and not confuse potential customers with your use of the other company's trademark in your materials.
Which this guy apparently did. Blizzard is way out on a crazy limb here and in my non-expert estimation, will probably not prevail.
Regards,
Ross
Blech, I was totally incorrect and wish I'd had the seventh cup of coffee before posting that.
Thanks to everyone who pointed it out!
J
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
The difference between all these other publishers and this one guy is that all these publishers do one thing first: that is ask Blizzard's permission. He is publicly using Blizzard's works for profit, and he's in the right to do so as long as he's asked. The disclaimer that he published doesn't mean anything without at the very least asking for permission.
I wonder what would have happened if the guy just followed accepted procedure and simply asked to publish his works? Most of the time, as stated, this stuff benefits the brand that's being advertised, so the company will just say yes. But without asking, getting the profits too benefits blizzard even more. It's people with money looking for more money, which, in our capitalist fair to the consumer economy, is what we all do. This guy just made it easy.
Not to defend blizzard here, but look at every other brand, you can't take them and start selling them as your own under any copyright law without the "used with permission" clause.
Probably that he's trying to make a buck off THEIR IP.
Like movie reviewers?
Copyright law was not written to prevent people from "making a buck." It's to prevent people from taking a buck away from the copyright holder. This book sounds like it's perfectly within the boundaries of fair use.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
FYI, most of these game guides are created by taking information (even if it's outdated) from strategy sites like MultiplayerStrategies.com. I wrote a few guides for them (No, I wasn't paid, but they have paid writers on the staff) and those guides turned up in different places for free. (whatever).
Another one of their writers (mongoose) who is very popular for having leveled every class to 60, has had many of his guides stolen and resold on ebay, and on those annoying 1 page ad websites. The worst part is they resell guides that are months old, with tips that haven't worked for many patches (such as the zoning into and out of instances near maintanence to dupe items).
I was actually thinking about writing a new guide and selling it on ebay. Nice to see blizz is picking on the little guys again. tsk tsk.
So does this mean that if I write a tutorial textbook on how to create awesome chart macros in Excel, I would be infringing on Microsofts copyright on MS Excel? Sounds like BS to me, and shortsighted BS at that.
As far as I'm concerned, anything that offers an alternative to the mostly-useless Prima "official" game guides is an improvement. I've always thought the whole Prima game guide deal was a big scam to get more money from consumers for basic information that can be easily found elsewhere and doesn't contain any real insight, tricks or valuable tips.
It is not necessary to receive permission to publish a work. If that were so, every review that negatively commented on a movie or a book would be 86'd. It would be impossible to comment on any work without making direct references to it.
As far as your capitalist comment, a company would only allow permission if the work would favorably impact their bottom line.
Lastly, you most certainly can use a "Brand" when selling a product of your own, as long as you make note of whom that "Brand" belongs to, and correctly make attributions. If I say "Cleans 10% better then Tide(TM)", I'm perfectly within my rights to do so. I know you've all seen the commercials, for example, that say Oust is more effective in cleaning airborne bacteria then Lysol.
This guy wasn't attempting to take WoW and start selling it as his own. He created a work of his own that made attributions to any brands, trademarks, and copyrights of the respective owners. Now, if Blizzard had come out with a guide of it's own saying "How to make Phat Gold and Other Farming Techniques" and the author basically repackaged and resold it, then that would be different.
The author is likely to lose not based off technical grounds, but rather from a lack of resources.
What appears to have been happening is this:
He puts an item up for auction.
Blizzard issues a notice to Ebay to remove it. (This is similar to, but distinct from, a section 512 takedown notice -- something the plaintiff's attorneys may be confused about, from reading the complaint)
Ebay removes it automatically.
He contests it, which results in Ebay putting it back up after a period of time.
Blizzard issues another notice.
Ebay removes it automatically again.
Cycles of putting it up and having it taken down continue until his ebay account eventually gets suspended.
Even if he was mostly upset about Ebay having this policy that is highly favorable toward rightsholders, ultimately the central issue is whether or not the takedown notices are supported by a right held by Blizzard.
Ebay doesn't make a decision, you see. They don't want to be in that position. They just do what they're told with regard to takedowns, with the proviso that takedowns that are challenged and not responded to will be canceled, and the offending item put back up. (Which is similar to the 512 system)
Blizzard and this guy, Kopp, are the ones in the best position to resolve things. Ebay is stuck in the middle.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I'm no lawyer, but I'm willing to bet Blizzard is working under the derivative works clause of the Copyright Act. In essence, "derivative works" means that I own the rights not just to what I have created but also to what I have not yet created.
For example: If I write an science fiction novel with original characters, settings, etc., I own not only the story I have written but also the characters and the settings I have written about. I can create further works based on those characters and settings, which promotes the original purpose of copyright law (at least as I understand it).
If, on the other hand, I want to write a novel set in the Farscape universe, I can't just go out and write the story. For one thing, someone else owns that universe--and aside from the capital they stand to lose if I write and publish something set in their universe, they also stand to lose the intellectual integrity. What would Farscape look like if any schmo could publish material about it?
That's what I think Blizzard is protecting here--not just its right to make money off its product, but the ability to make sure people who participate in WOW are getting information that's at least somewhat accurate.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
I think it can be generally agreed on that writing about WoW on its own isn't an infrigement; books do this all day, and then also makes it clear who owns the trademark, like this one did, and everyone is happy. But... These guides also had screenshots, which he said would fall under fair use, however, these books are also sold for profit, which means he's profiting in part from Blizzard's material.
For fair use to be most clearly applicable, the content need to not impact the copyright owner, the material isn't sold, and isn't used to profit from it. But these things aren't fulfilled here, which puts him in a grey area, and I can understand why greddy Blizzard lawyers make a fuss of this when they can.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Let's say i'm a journalist, right? I can write an article on WoW, or give WoW tips and i won't get sued, right?
How about if i am the editor of the computer-games-related magazine, the above journalist works for : I won't get sued for selling the magazine containing said article, right?
And how about if i do a special issue? A WoW themed issue of the magazine, filled with WoW related articles? Do the various journalists working on the issue risk getting sued? How about the editor, is he getting sued?
How about if we do an extra issue? Let's say the magazine is published every month and i decide do do a special, WoW dedicated, 13th issue? Is Blizzard going to knock on the editor's door saying he can't publish his magazine?
How about if the magazine is big enough for it to be printed in paperback format, instead of the normal magazine format? Can't the editor of the above mentioned magazine change formats to reduce printing expenses? Or is it illegal?
How about if a journalist asks the editor to write a book about WoW? It might get him the pulitzer prize or whatever - should the editor comply? Will he be breaking the law? Will the journalist?
Can somebody point out to me where do we draw the line?