Bethesda Sues Warner Bros, Calls Its Westworld Game 'Blatant Rip-Off' of Fallout Shelter (polygon.com)

Bethesda, the video game publisher behind Fallout and The Elder Scrolls, is suing Warner Bros. and Fallout Shelter co-developer Behavior Interactive over the recently released Westworld, alleging that the mobile game based on HBO's TV series is a "blatant rip-off" of Fallout Shelter. Polygon reports: In a suit filed in a Maryland U.S. District Court, Bethesda alleges that Westworld -- developed by Behaviour and released this week for Android and iOS -- "has the same or highly similar game design, art style, animations, features and other gameplay elements" as Fallout Shelter. Fallout Shelter was originally released in 2015 for mobile devices. The game was later ported to Nintendo Switch, PlayStation 4, Windows PC and Xbox One.

Bethesda said in its suit that Behaviour uses "the same copyrighted computer code created for Fallout Shelter in Westworld," alleging that a bug evident in an early version of Fallout Shelter (which was later fixed) also appears in Westworld. Bethesda alleges the companies "copied Fallout Shelter's features and then made cosmetic modifications for Westworld's 'western' theme."

Comments

Huh

[ChromeAeonuim]

I'll be darned, I didn't know those crapfest microtransaction filled mobile games had enough differences between them in the first place to have lawsuit worthy similarities. You learn something new every day.

Bethesda believes they just re-used the code

[BenJeremy]

Considering it's the same developer, and the Westworld game seems to be just a reskin/mod of their Fallout Shelter game, complete with the same bugs, the lawsuit isn't surprising.

I have no problem with this lawsuit, unlike the "similarity" lawsuits like the PUBG/Fortnite stupidity.

Re:Bethesda believes they just re-used the code

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Reminds me of the very early text adventure game that was released for the TRS-80 back in the early days.. It was just the classic text "Adventure" with the description strings replaced, to change from exploring "colossal cave" to exploring an Egyptian pyramid.

For instance: In place of the delicate ming vase and the pillow, you find a miniature mummy that will shatter if you put it back down ("drop it") unless you carry it a little way and find a "mummy case" to put it in.

If you remember the winning moves in Adventure you could run straight through this one as well. Boring...

Re:Did they have it written into a contract

[LordKronos]

Did they have it written into a contract that they couldn't re-use code? If so they company's boned, but if not,

Actually, it's the reverse of that. Unless it's written into the contract that they CAN reuse the code, the company is probably boned.

Generally the law is that whoever writes the code keeps the copyright, unless someone else paid them to write it (ie: a work for hire) and the contract did not state otherwise. So if they wrote the game and then sold it to Bethesda, they're OK. If Bethesda contracted them to write it and wrote in the contract that they can keep the copyrights, then they're OK. But the most likely scenario here is that Bethesda contracted them, and the contract did NOT say they can keep the copyright, which would mean Bethesda wins.

Now of course, it depends on the nature of the bugs. If, for example, the bug is the result of some code library they wrote years ago (before the contract), then that particular code would not have been part of the work-for-hire and would most likely be treated like any other licensed 3rd party library.

Re:Did they have it written into a contract

[Spazmania]

Get ready for another reversal: Unless created by a direct employee (someone who gets a W2 form from you at the end of the year) "works made for hire" must fall under one of 9 categories established under the law. If the work doesn't fit in to one of the nine, it doesn't matter what the contract says: the copyright vests in the company that made it not the company that paid.

https://www.copyright.gov/circ...

Bethesda hopes Behaviour's work is a "contribution to a collective work" but generally that means a -small- contribution like one article for an encyclopedia.

Here's the lesson: don't write a contract which says you own the contractors work. The law may contradict you. Write a contract which says the contractor agrees to assign you all rights to their work. That's enforceable in court.