Slashdot Mirror


How To Judge Legal Risk When Making a Game Clone?

An anonymous reader writes "I'm an indie game developer making a clone of a rather obscure old game. Gameplay in my clone is very similar to the old game, and my clone even has a very similar name because I want to attract fans of the original. The original game has no trademark or software patent associated with it, and my clone isn't infringing on the original's copyright in any way (all the programming and artwork is original), but nevertheless I'm still worried about the possibility of running afoul of a look and feel lawsuit or something similar. How do I make sure I'm legally in the clear without hiring an expensive lawyer that my indie developer budget can't afford?"

52 of 270 comments (clear)

  1. Laws have become horribly, horribly complex by bcmm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How do I make sure I'm legally in the clear without hiring an expensive lawyer

    Laws have become horribly, horribly complex. I'm not sure any of us can do that for anything we do.

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    1. Re:Laws have become horribly, horribly complex by snowgirl · · Score: 5, Informative

      How do I make sure I'm legally in the clear without hiring an expensive lawyer

      Laws have become horribly, horribly complex. I'm not sure any of us can do that for anything we do.

      This is very true. I've been reading a lot about law recently, because it's become pertinent to my everyday life. In this case, and ALL legal cases, the law is SUPER crazy complex. First you need to read up on rules governing this stuff, then laws, then amendments to those laws, then you have to read a bunch of court cases on the matter, and then you have to have the legal background to understand how all of those apply to your specific situation.

      The summary author really only has one of two choices: a) pay a lawyer, or b) ignore the legal consequences and only deal with them if you get sued.

      Very simply, that's the plain ugly truth hanging-all-out-there-naked version of every question of, "what should I do about law X, or law Y"... well, unless you're in Arizona. Then there's an option c) pay someone who is willing to do the research for you, even if they're not a lawyer, but understand their qualifications before trusting their evaluations. Outside of Arizona, no one can even give you any clues about your legal liability without running aground of questions of practicing law.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    2. Re:Laws have become horribly, horribly complex by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Funny

      I sell FUD insurance. It's not clear now if you need it, but it would be very bad if you do turn out need it and don't have it.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    3. Re:Laws have become horribly, horribly complex by adamrut · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Gameplay in my clone is very similar to the old game

      Pretty much all games have used and extended ideas from previous games, copied user interfaces, themes, etc. So I don't think you'd get into trouble making something similar (at least a token effort should be made to put some original styling to the game).

      and my clone even has a very similar name

      but I think this is the bit where the pants get sued off.

    4. Re:Laws have become horribly, horribly complex by Moryath · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Remember: the difference between a "rip-off" and an "homage" is whether or not the other side has a goddamn sense of humor.

    5. Re:Laws have become horribly, horribly complex by Sophira · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Girls do exist on Slashdot, you know. In fact, I'd consider myself geekier than most guys. ;)

    6. Re:Laws have become horribly, horribly complex by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Often this is difficult. A lot of games made in the '80s, for example, were made by individuals who are not easy to trace or by small companies that have since ceased to exist. The copyright may have been transferred a dozen times through bankruptcies or asset sales and the current owner may not even be aware that they own it. They may transfer it again after the game is released and the new owner may notice that they can make some money by suing...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:Laws have become horribly, horribly complex by mdwh2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Did all the companies writing FPS games contact ID for permission to make Doom/Quake clones? What about the various Civilization clones (FreeCiv, but also the commercial clone Call To Power)?

      If you don't believe you're infringing, I fear the problem with this approach is that you're scoring an own goal by admitting you copied their work. And they have no reason to say yes, so chances are they'd say no.

      It depends on what is meant by a "clone" of course - storylines and characters can be copied. But remember that simply ideas cannot (AFAIK, IANAL).

    8. Re:Laws have become horribly, horribly complex by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't ask permission. When you're in front of the judge, they're going to pull out a file folder with your call transcript in it. They're going to argue that you KNEW you were infringing, when you asked permission you were TOLD NO, and you INFRINGED on their rights anyway. The judge will be impressed, and you will be ass-raped if you're lucky.

      Don't ask any permission. Just do it and have a good lawyer ready. And don't talk to anybody who calls about infringement. Tell them to talk to your lawyer.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    9. Re:Laws have become horribly, horribly complex by Sophira · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Only one thing to say to that: http://xkcd.com/322/ .

    10. Re:Laws have become horribly, horribly complex by Sophira · · Score: 2, Funny

      That seems a bit unfair to guys. I mean, I know a guy who's interested in four things.

    11. Re:Laws have become horribly, horribly complex by icebraining · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's not "having" a lawyer. That's having a phone number. Having a lawyer implies he's doing some kind of work for you.

    12. Re:Laws have become horribly, horribly complex by snowgirl · · Score: 3, Informative

      OK, I'm curious. Why Arizona? I'm not from the USA, so maybe I'm missing something there...

      Arizona does not place the restriction that only members of the bar can practice law. Thus, anyone can provide you with legal advice... you just need to realize yourself when you can't, or can rely upon the information.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    13. Re:Laws have become horribly, horribly complex by westlake · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Don't ask any permission. Just do it and have a good lawyer ready.

      Good lawyers cost money.

      The best lawyers will tell you to drop this idea before it costs you even more money - and time.

    14. Re:Laws have become horribly, horribly complex by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Patents only last 20 years (closer to 17 in practice) and become increasingly expensive over this period. Any patents from the '80s will now have expired. If the game is from the mid '90s then there may be a problem. Design patents, which would cover the look and feel of a game, only last 14 years, so they wouldn't apply for any game released before 1996. Note also that for a patent to have been licensed for designing a game, it would need to have been filed well before the game was released, so any game before about 1998 is likely to be fair game. The original question stipulated 'an old game', although didn't specify how old, exactly.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  2. The real question: WOULD they sue? by Senes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The question can not be asked whether someone "can" sue, because anyone can file a suit for any reason. And in modern legal warfare, that is a good assessment of how things go down. Instead it is a matter of whether they WOULD sue. The questions you should be asking yourself: -Who holds the rights over the original game? -How litigious have they been in the past? -Do they belong to an industry association?

    1. Re:The real question: WOULD they sue? by Z00L00K · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And yet another question - do that corporation know that they have the right to that game?

      Not every corporation does have track records that legally entitles them to the copyright of a certain piece of software written some 30 years ago. It may be that during some part of the process those rights were left out or that the purchase only was for the brand name etc.

      Not everyone suing does hold the rights either.

      There are multiple variations on a theme here. But if you do sell a look-alike that does have some modern or modified qualities in it it's hard to claim copyright on it. All adventure games do inherit from the original "The Cave".

      And now it's the internet - so selling games from certain sales locations will make lawsuits trickier. You may even have a business model of free download and then sell services around the game instead.

      Just go the way that will create the most headache for the holders of the rights to the original game for them to figure out if it's worth pursuing and how to do that. Distribute the responsibility for the game and the development of it into different legal entities so that you only have a facade company that takes the hit if something goes down the drain. Facade company owns the rights to the software, but every employee is in another to which all the money goes as "development costs", so if it goes really bad only the facade falls and the application rights may get voided.

      Done right the risks are lowered.

      Just make sure that it will cost more to investigate your businesses than what can be gained from pursuing a case against you and you can relax a bit.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:The real question: WOULD they sue? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This would land on the desk of a company lawyer, whose thought processes on the matter would be: "If I grant permission and something bad comes of this guy cloning the game, I'll get blamed for it. If I grant permission and this guy makes a lot of money cloning the game, I'll get blamed for the company not getting that money. If I don't grant permission, I can't get blamed for anything. Which do I choose?"

    3. Re:The real question: WOULD they sue? by Z00L00K · · Score: 2, Funny

      And SCO seems to still haven't come to the conclusion.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  3. Risk it by dintech · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Go for it and don't worry. If you make money on the game and someone notices, you might need to share the profits. Given the description of the game, that might be fair in this context. On the other hand, if you don't make any money, no-one is going to bother you with anything other than a cease and desist. Either of these scenarios will make your game more popular. See Streisand effect for details.

    1. Re:Risk it by delinear · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Obviously the downside to that is that, if you've invested money in producing the game and then you're hit with a cease and desist before you've sold anything, you'll be out of pocket for the development costs.

    2. Re:Risk it by Zadaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "On the other hand, if you don't make any money, no-one is going to bother you with anything other than a cease and desist."

      This is entirely false and shows the problem with asking for legal advice from random strangers on the Internet. If a company feels that you're damaging their trademark, image, etc, they'll sue you for damages, even if you have never made a dime. And they can win money you don't have.

      If you have a question for a lawyer and you can't afford one, stop what you're doing. It's that simple.

      The OP says:

      " The original game has no trademark or software patent associated with it..."

      How do you know? Did you just type "obscure game" into the USPTO's web site? Or did you have someone who knows what they hell they're doing to a trademark and patent search. I suspect it's the former because the latter costs money, which you complained about not having, and can be done by an attorney who could also answer your questions.

      The OP continues

      "...my clone isn't infringing on the original's copyright in any way (all the programming and artwork is original)"

      And this is why you're in deep crap, you have a limited and incorrect idea of what copyright is.

      Oh, and hey, you're not making an iPhone game are you? Because if you are, when you go to publish your game you'll see the checkboxes for all those other countries, so hey, why not publish them there too? Bigger audience, more money, right? Or at least bigger potential legal risk. Copyrights, trademarks, patents, and intellectual property law are different in different countries, and lately the US has been willing to cooperate with litigious foreigners.

      Note that I'm blindly assuming you're in the US. That's because you left the all important "what jurisdiction I'm in" information off your question. Just another sign of your ignorance and why you really really need to find the money for a lawyer.

    3. Re:Risk it by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you have a question for a lawyer and you can't afford one, stop what you're doing.

      In other words, everybody who isn't rich enough to see a lawyer should commit suicide because ultimately, everybody has questions. I hope this isn't what you meant.

      Did you just type "obscure game" into the USPTO's web site?

      If I type each of the companies that developed and published the game into the "Assignee Name" field and nothing on the list is relevant, is that enough?

      And this is why you're in deep crap, you have a limited and incorrect idea of what copyright is.

      Could you explain further? As far as I can tell given information published by the U.S. Copyright Office as well as the opinion in Capcom v. Data East, copyright doesn't apply to the rules of a game as such.

      Just another sign of your ignorance and why you really really need to find the money for a lawyer.

      Any idea how to raise this sort of capital?

    4. Re:Risk it by Icarium · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you have a question for a lawyer and you can't afford one, stop what you're doing.

      That has to be the saddest statement I've read in a long time.

    5. Re:Risk it by gordo3000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      why waste money on a lawyer? do you have idea what it costs? why not mimic what the big guys do: check the obvious and if it isn't there, don't waste time going through every IP whore's portfolio.

      given that you read slashdot, you should browse the home page and notice that MS just pulled office as it lost a patent suit. Any idea how much money MS has? how many lawyers are on their payroll? how ridiculous it is to expect someone to pay 10s of thousands of dollars for an in depth IP search across multiple markets? that is one heck of a brute force approach. I sure hope you aren't trying to run a small business that has anything to do with IP because I'd be worried as an investor that you are squandering money trying to turn over every stone rather than building a better product.

      how about a creative approach? hire a lawyer to start a small corporation where he is the only investor and have that company publish the game. At that point, if he gets into trouble, he just loses the capital in the company. If he is smart and pays himself a salary as a hired employee, then (granted, his taxes get more complex) even with a lawsuit, he should have been able to drain enough of hte earnings out of the company in his salary to not be on the hook for his personal assets. A small business lawyer can do this for cheap (1k) and help him work through many of his questions quickly about how to separate the books properly. but it's sure a smarter idea than "hey lawyer guy, why don't you take this product and search every IP in every market and see if I'll run foul". oh, and while he is at it, I'm sure you are expecting him to get it right. we've seen how many well financed companies have no IP problems.

    6. Re:Risk it by dissy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you have a question for a lawyer and you can't afford one, stop what you're doing.

      In other words, everybody who isn't rich enough to see a lawyer should commit suicide because ultimately, everybody has questions. I hope this isn't what you meant.

      Wow. If that is the logic you use in life, then perhaps that would be good advice for you.
      But no, nobody here except you means that.

      If you want legal advice, you get it from a lawyer. It's that simple.
      If you aren't rich, there is no need for any mass suicides, it just means you can not afford the proper legal advice, and will be moving forward with potential risk of running up on the law or someone elses rights (Or perceived rights anyway)

      As a car example, I can not afford to have a second car sitting around as a standby. No need to kill myself as you think. It just means I run the risk of being stranded without any car if my current only car breaks down.

      This is a risk I accept, and I will deal with the consequences of that risk if and when they come up.
      If you choose to not seek proper legal advice, just realize it is a risk you are taking, and might have to deal with. If that level of risk is acceptable to you, then there is no problems here.

      Did you just type "obscure game" into the USPTO's web site?

      If I type each of the companies that developed and published the game into the "Assignee Name" field and nothing on the list is relevant, is that enough?

      God no!

      As one example, the company you search for might have licensed software from another company, one you might not know about and definitely did not search for in your above example.
      Just because the game company licensed it for distribution, does not mean you get those same rights.

      It might not be software that was licensed, but a name, or a particular look and feel of part of the game.
      Short of speaking with the original company, it's not entirely obvious what deals like this were made.

      This is why copyright and patent layers are used and needed for this. Learning all the details of the laws quite literally takes a lifetime career in law study to get (And often times even that is not enough!)

      And this is why you're in deep crap, you have a limited and incorrect idea of what copyright is.

      Could you explain further? As far as I can tell given information published by the U.S. Copyright Office [copyright.gov] as well as the opinion in Capcom v. Data East, copyright doesn't apply to the rules of a game as such.

      Rules of a game can not be copyrighted, however 'look and feel' is, as well as the name of the game.
      Using a similar, even if unrelated, name will land you in trouble.

      Remember not a year ago the online game Scrabulous based of Scrable? They used all their own artwork, only copying the rules. They were successfully sued by choosing a name they argued would purposely cause confusion and liken their software to scrable. This is not legal, there is plenty of case law to show this is the result that will come out of the court case, and the article submitter specifically said this was one thing they are doing.

      Just another sign of your ignorance and why you really really need to find the money for a lawyer.

      Any idea how to raise this sort of capital?

      The rest of us get and work at what is called a 'day job' for that sort of thing.
      Sorry if having one cuts into you doing the things you want to in a day, but I have the exact same complaint with work and do it none the less, as I like to have money with which to do the things I enjoy (Such as this)

  4. You can't by dreamchaser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How do I make sure I'm legally in the clear without hiring an expensive lawyer that my indie developer budget can't afford?

    You can't. The worst thing you can do is what you're doing; going to a bunch of random armchair lawyers on the Internet.

    If you're that worried, get a lawyer or do a different project.

    1. Re:You can't by dnaumov · · Score: 3, Funny

      Even better, instead of just getting a lawyer, get a lawyer AND make original games! Sounds crazy, but seems to work for some...

  5. Assassinate the original owners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Once they're all dead, they'll be no-one left to sue you.

    1. Re:Assassinate the original owners by zblack_eagle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But then their estate could sue

    2. Re:Assassinate the original owners by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Funny

      Assassinate the copyright owners, then wait 70 years?

    3. Re:Assassinate the original owners by arethuza · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How about go back and time taking your game with to just before the original author releases their game and sue them for ripping off your game? :-)

  6. PlanetMULE by BobisOnlyBob · · Score: 3, Funny

    By any chance are you the guy running PlanetMULE?

  7. Position wisely by santax · · Score: 2, Interesting

    On the globe that is. If you do not want to get sued (I am European so we don't have that problem really here) make sure you are NOT officially an US developer. Create a cheap company on some island in the middle of nowhere where the US has nothing to say. When the original creator starts wanting to get paid for your work, move to that island and just enjoy it! Laws are so utterly complex, one law overruling or disagreeing with another law that it would be foolish to think you by yourself can fight against that system. They will just bleed you dry if they really want to and have the resources to do so. However, and this is more serious advice. I like to make remakes of oldschool games myself. Sometimes with new elements, but I have also made a lot 1:1 remakes. In those cases I just wrote to the original creator. Asking if they were ok with it. This was all non-profit though, but for the 8 games I remade, 1 guy said he didn't want me to remake it. So I ignored him, remade it for myself but never gave it to anyone. I never ran into problems with that last tactic. And I think it really is the best advice I can give you. Track down and contact the original maker and ask them permission. That would save you so much trouble if they agree.

  8. Re:The legal system is unfair by Firewing1 · · Score: 3, Informative
    They didn't just mimic a public API... they included a statically linked version of MySQL without releasing their derived code under the GPL as well:

    The product contains MySQL[tm] under GPL and Gemini. Gemini is statically linked to the MySQL code. This means that Gemini needs to be under GPL as well, but it is not.

  9. Sounds high risk by williamhb · · Score: 4, Informative

    In my (non-legal-professional) opinion, what you are doing sounds high risk -- you are consciously replicating their expressed work (the game) and even admittedly giving it a deliberately similar title. It sounds like there are some copyright issues -- some things about games can be copyright and others can't; your remake might be considered a "derivative work" however. If you did wheedle out of that complaint, it sounds like you could still potentially be sued for "passing off" as you have a deliberately similar product with a deliberately similar name.

    I'd advise having a look at the legal history of Scrabulous. They remade a not-so-obscure game, got sued, won on some parts but lost on others, but are still trading (being sued is not necessarily game over).

  10. Original game by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do you know who owns the IP to the original game? Do they have a habit for litigating? Do they even know they have the IP or did they acquire it by buying distributor X that bought then bankrupt studio Y that got it from independent coder Z?

    And is the original game Hardwar or X-com? Because in that case, keep programming, whatever happens ;-)

    (Make sure you release the source before getting dragged off by some goons into a black helicopter though)

    --

    People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
  11. They can only sue you for money that you have by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So if you ever make any, spend some of it on an accountant(*) and get him to set up two companies: one incorporated in Elbonia that has all the assets, and a shell development company with all the liabilities. Don't contest any lawsuit, just smile, punt the shell company into bankruptcy, and set up another one.

    This isn't meant to be flippant; it's a model that works just fine for Hollywood. Ask any creative type who's ever tried to get any money out of a studio.

    (*) Accountants are much like lawyers, except that they're cheaper, and they can be harmed with conventional weapons.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:They can only sue you for money that you have by vlm · · Score: 3, Informative

      They can only sue you for money that you have

      Really. Hmmm... $1.92 million verdict against Jammie Thomas-Rasset

      Exactly. You now understand the post perfectly. Set up a dirt poor shell corp, let them sue the corp for 100000 billion for all you care, let them take possession of the corporations coffee maker and its promotional tee shirt collection, and start over at a new shell company.

      Make sure to at least talk to a "cheap" lawyer about becoming judgment proof and the phrase "piercing the corporate veil".

      The overall gameplan is to make setting up a shell corp cheaper than suing the shell corp into non-existence all while somehow making a profit despite the profound lack of corporate capital.

      Obviously, don't do something stupid like loan your personal money to the shell corporation, unless you want to lose that money (or can afford to lose it).

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  12. So what you're saying is by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am copying what they did as exactly as I can, though because I don't understand what "copyright" means, I think it has nothing to do with this. Meanwhile, I am using their name for the exact reasons that laws exist to prevent such a thing happening, but I don't think that matters either. Finally, I haven't even bothered to contact the people who made the game, because to me it's more important that I "don't get sued" than that I'm, you know, a decent human being or anything.

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  13. Do your research by lewster32 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm working on a project of a similar nature for an early Julian Gollop game called Chaos: Battle of the Wizards, and I devoted a good amount of time early on in tracking Julian down and seeking his permission. It's obviously a complex and confusing process that's individual to each game, but at the most basic level there is always the intellectual property to be aware of. Also, things change significantly if you wish to make a commercial venture of the game. As said in other comments, a free 'tribute' is a lot less open to flak (unless you're 'tributing' a Nintendo game, in which case buy body armour and watch out for red dots) and will generally be ignored. If however you remake a game and whack it on the App Store for $2.99 again, you're gonna have to watch your back (if it even gets approved in the first place) For my own part, I finally got in touch with Julian via LinkedIn, and he turned out to be most gracious, supportive and polite, and he gave his blessing for me to continue (http://www.rotates.org/2009/05/20/the-man-speaks/). It's really worth taking the time to find the original developer and taking it from there.

    --
    Lew
  14. Stand on your own by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Get your own name. You can go fairly far in cloning gameplay - think how much one FPS or TBS or RTS or RPG looks like the other, but don't steal unique units, characters and storylines. And while I don't approve of astroturfing where you pretend to be a customer, you can generated buzz about it. Go into every forum you can find about the old game, say this game is inspired of it. Right now I'm playing Dragon Age, and boy are there many old chestnuts of dwarves and elves and warriors and rouges and mages and the whole storyline about a blight and an archdemon are hardly original. Go for the one-up, "if you liked [old game], you'll love [new game]". Right now you come of sounding like one of the cheap watch salesmen "same same but different".

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  15. In the UK... by CapnOats.com · · Score: 2, Informative
    ...you should be fine.

    This article details legal proceedings in just such a case.
    http://www.daledietrich.com/gaming/novas-pool-cue-game-mechanics-not-protectable-by-uk-copyright/

    A choice quote by Lord Justice Jacob is

    "A series of drawings is a series of graphic works, not a single graphic work in itself. No-one would say that the copyright in a single drawing of Felix the Cat is infringed by a drawing of Donald Duck. A series of cartoon frames showing Felix running over a cliff edge into space, looking down and only then falling would not be infringed by a similar set of frames depicting Donald doing the same thing. That is in effect what is alleged here."

    This is similar to the Lexulous (formerly Scrabulous) case, where the games makers were forced to make minor changes, including a rename, as it was too close a copy of Scrabble.

    More details can be found at
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexulous#Legal_and_copyright_issues

  16. Let me present a third choice by mrjb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    a) pay a lawyer, or
    b) ignore the legal consequences and only deal with them if you get sued.

    It takes being a bit cheeky, but you can also

    c) contact the author/publisher of the old game and get (in writing) that they have no problems whatsoever with you releasing the clone.

    If you're dealing with a company like Atari (who? yes, they still exist!) or anything Disney, you are probably out of luck. If you're dealing with a Scott Adams (of Pirate's adventure fame) type of person, there's probably no problem at all. As you say the game is rather obscure, so chances are they will have no problem with you releasing a remake, and they won't sue. Perhaps they can even benefit from your efforts, if you're willing to link to the original game!

    --
    Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
    1. Re:Let me present a third choice by osu-neko · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...a company like Atari (who? yes, they still exist!)...

      Depends on who you mean by "they". If by "they" you mean the people who bought the rights to use the "Atari" trademark, yes, they exist. If you mean the company that made classic video games in the 80s, no, they're long gone...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    2. Re:Let me present a third choice by Minwee · · Score: 5, Funny

      If you're dealing with a company like Atari (who? yes, they still exist!)

      No, they don't. Atari as a company ceased to exist in 1996. The name was picked up by Hasbro in 1998 and then by Infogrames in 2001, but apart from the name, logo and ownership of a truckload of copyrights the organization currently calling itself "Atari" has absolutely nothing in common with the company Nolan Bushnell founded back in 1972.

      This isn't a question of Theseus' Ship sitting in the harbour at Athens and being slowly replaced board by board until there is nothing left of the original, it's more like Theseus taking his ship out to sea for a wild party, dousing it with gasoline and burning it to the waterline, only to have Menelaus build an entirely new ship in Sparta with the name "Thezeus" on the prow two years later and then sailing it to Mycenae and selling it to Agamemnon who turns it into an amusement park where people pay large sums of money to play on half-finished rides and be beaten with sticks when they complain.

      The modern day Atari is the ship that Orestes built after termites destroyed that one. And it has trouble floating because he ran out of wood before the job was done. The Mycenaean QA department insists that the boat is good and that there is no need to patch it as any sinking problems are clearly the fault of the end users.

    3. Re:Let me present a third choice by roguetrick · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, this is either TediousAnalogyGuy or PretentiousAnalogyGuy.

      --
      -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
  17. Good luck with that. by jibjibjib · · Score: 2, Informative

    How do I make sure I'm legally in the clear without hiring an expensive lawyer

    Aren't "legally in the clear" and "hiring an expensive lawyer" the same thing now?

    1. Re:Good luck with that. by xtracto · · Score: 2, Funny

      No - all that hiring an expensive lawyer does is give you someone to sue if you follow their advice and still get sued into oblivion by the other party.

      So your plan is to sue a lawyer??? you will need a lawyer for that I guess.... oh shit.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
  18. You don't... by osu-neko · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How do I make sure I'm legally in the clear without hiring an expensive lawyer that my indie developer budget can't afford?

    How do I make sure I don't get pregnant while having sex every day without using any form of contraception?

    (Obvious answer: you don't. If you want to make sure you're legally in the clear, you hire an expensive lawyer. If you don't want to hire an expensive lawyer, then you live with not being sure you're legally in the clear.)

    --
    "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    1. Re:You don't... by Rhaban · · Score: 2, Funny

      How do I make sure I don't get pregnant while having sex every day without using any form of contraception?

      Be male.

  19. A couple of thoughts from a lawyer by classified · · Score: 2, Informative

    I am a lawyer and practice primarily in software. I tried to read through this thread and responses - and as is typical here, at least for me, it is hard to separate the valuable insight from really really bad advice. I enjoy /. mainly for the comical signature lines most of the time.

    First - no venture, no product or service, is risk free. There are ways to minimize the risk - and often small changes can make a big difference. The post you made here is itself possible evidence. By merely posting in a public area like this, and describing your intent, you have increased your risk.

    Second - no software, and I mean none of it, is IP infringement free. Your objective should be to modify or avoid areas that increase risk, and then proceed.

    Third - a common misconception in software development of related software is the idea that because you do not have the prior code, you are not making a derivative work. There are a number of copyright cases in other areas (they principally deal with "plots" in movies and books) that will apply to software development, because a game in the end is an interactive audiovisual work that is also a story that the player writes. So, you have to apply these older cases in the theater world to software. Those cases distinguish between going too far in plot duplication, from taking only what is known as "scenes a faire." That doctrine translates in English to "common element" or "building block." So, for example, copyright law will not prevent one author from using a common theme, element or building block gained from the knowledge of a past work. Otherwise, copyright would protect the idea - and copyright law cannot protect ideas.

    So, you need to go see a lawyer, and show the lawyer the prior game. A good lawyer who knows copyright law can then tell you what elements are "building blocks" and which are core plot or thematic elements. In the cases, one component of this analysis is how well a character is developed. For example, "Lara Croft" was a very well developed game character. In the games she killed people and blew things up etc and had grand adventures. So, the idea of a woman in a game doing these things cannot be protected by the owner of the Lara Croft games. However, as a subsequent game character approaches expressive elements of Lara Croft's character . . . infringement is likely.

    It is even more complex than this, though. Because assuming you can hurdle copyright law, now you need to deal with trademark law. In short . . . this is a complex issue and you do need to see a lawyer.

    I have been engaged to both prevent, and to correct, errors made during software development. It is VASTLY less expensive to hire a lawyer and prevent errors. Once an error is made, the cost is astronomical to fix it. The last jury trial I did was a game development gone bad, and I represented the developer trying to get paid. We won and the jury gave us 100% . . . but since that time, I have devoted the last 15 years to doing only transactional software development law and licensing. Please find a lawyer and pay them for some advice. There are things you can do on the front end to really minimize the likelihood that the prior game owner will sue you.

    A final thought - many people have suggested contacting the prior game owner. That is definitely something to consider IMO only if the advice is that your game is likely an infringement of the prior game. When development would be easier this way we advise this - but be prepared for negotiating a royalty deal. In most cases, a developer will simply "design around" the prior intellectual property and not seek permission. However, depending on the IP owner, sometimes permission is easy (for example, it is fairly easy to get permission from the estate of Jimi Hendrix; it is next near impossible to get it from the estate of Jim Morrison of the Doors - and figuring this out is rather easy - also, a lawyer can do this for you anonymously).

    - mike oliver