Post by hechelion in Copyright Infringement

Viewing post in Copyright Infringement

The thing is that not only the sprites or music are protected, but also the names and characters, for example, Superman.

If you draw Superman from scratch and place that drawing in your game, it is still Superman, which is copyrighted content, it doesn't matter if you drew it from scratch. Drawing it from 0, by you, does not give you the legal right to sell or distribute said content.

As @Eris Lord Freedom says, it would have to be a "Transformative" work, for example, a superhero who flies, but who is not called Superman and who is not so similar.

When you make a fan game, it usually refers to names and content that is the property of a company, even if you create the sprites or music.

You can create a VN about a mustachioed plumber and a princess in a fictional world inhabited by turtles and you'll legally be safe.
But can it be considered a fan.game?

The moment you make a VN of Mario and Peach, what would be a fan-game. You also have a copyright problem, because that Mario and that princess are protected content.

As you say, there are certain lines that are not clear and could only be resolved in court. But in this case we are talking about Itch. If you make a VN with Mario and Peach and Nintendo comes with a DMCA to Itch.

What do you think will happen?

It is based on that that I always consider and recommend considering that any fan-game can be removed from Itch if the rights holder wants.

PD:
For example this case of harmony gold against argentine developments (sorry, only found in spanish)

https://www.guioteca.com/anime/harmony-gold-censura-produccion-de-fanaticos-arge...

This person had created some videos that told a fan-fiction story of an anime called "Robotech" all the content created from 0 and still had to delete everything.

He could have changed the name and designs, in such a way as not to use protected content, the problem is that by doing that, the product cannot be directly related to "Robotech" and therefore it would have ceased to be a fan-fiction of "Rototech".

Like Reply

Deleted account274 days ago

Deleted post

SlingBang272 days ago

Copyright 'law' is just a tool for rich people to maintain control over their cash-cow product. If the rich person doesn't COMPLAIN... poor people can do whatever they want. If the rich do complain, the poor lose. period. Know what the rich will tolerate, from previous examples, and don't cross the line.

Like Reply

Eris Lord Freedom272 days ago(+4)

It's not easy for an individual artist or self-published writer to sue Disney - but copyright law is what prevents Disney, Paramount, Warner Bros. etc. from just mass-grabbing stories and art and turning them into movies for their own profit. The fact that the law exists keeps them from grabbing everything they can.

There are occasional cases of "we're pretty sure this was grabbed from someone else's idea," but Sega couldn't grab Flappy Bird and distribute it through their channels because of copyright.

Like Reply

SlingBang271 days ago(+1)

I like your reply because it is true... but in all fairness, the creators of 'flappy-bird' (or any successful game) aren't poor anymore... so technically, copyright law is protecting the rich... because they are now rich. In reality, the VAST majority of TALENTED working artists are "poor" relatively-speaking, and (from one point of view) are being "exploited" by the rich... It's just called "employment", where the poor do all the work, and the rich take all the profits and own everything the poor create. Yes, that's just how the world works... but, it still ends with: Copyright 'law' is just a tool for rich people to maintain control over their cash-cow product. (99.99% of the time)

Like Reply

Magicsofa270 days ago

It doesn't matter if the game is "successful." A large company could see potential and steal it anyway. Copyright law deters them from doing that, especially if you register your copyright which only costs $35 in the USA. It is there to protect IP, not revenue. Obviously the corpos abuse it in the opposite direction, by trying to squash anything remotely related, but that's the company misusing their legal team. It's not like copyright law dictates that companies have to go looking for knockoffs to target.

Like Reply

redonihunter270 days ago

Registering copyright is not needed to have the copyright. You have that automatically in the US since 1989 by being the creator and publishing your work somehow also does not hurt to prove it.

Registration only brings some questionable benefits that might even be in violation of the treaty the US signed. Complicated stuff, but in the context we talk about this, almost no indie or amateur dev is gonna register their assets or pieces of work. How does that even work for software versions? Every published version needs their own 35 $ registration or what? Or worse, assets, every separatly "tangible" asset needs registration? Also, this only is valid for the US, afaik. In another country that also signed the treaty, only the fact that you are the copyright holder counts, not the registration in a US registrary.

Copyright only protects the actual works, hence my question about the different software versions. Also, software usually is governed by licences, yet another can of worms.

That is what you get, if you want to apply concepts for physical items to the digital world ;-)

Like Reply

Magicsofa270 days ago

It is not needed, but it is pretty much your only chance in court. The whole "mail yourself a copy" thing is a myth and pointless since as you said, just creating the thing is when you technically receive the copyright, not when you publish or register.

For videogames you can register the source code as well as tangible assets such as the artwork, soundtrack, and writing. I think it is similar to music where you can roll it all into one registration (for music, you can register the actual written music as well as a physical recording of it at the same time).

You don't get a copyright for some parts of it such as the name, or the gameplay mechanics. And yes, this process is probably not done by amateur developers who have some free projects up on itch. But I would think that anyone who is selling their game and netting even a small amount of revenue would be wise to get the registration.

Like Reply

redonihunter270 days ago

I am not talking about mail yourself a copy. This is not meant for digital stuff anyways and there seems to be no evidence that this is more than a myth.

The US law system is broken anyways in more than one way (like separation of powers), but needing that registration for anything is breaking it even more and that you do need it for anything might even be unlawful since 1989.

And I did not say, you receive copyright. This might be a translation issue. English is not my native language and not even the copyright concept is easily understandable.

You have the copyright by being the creator of a work. As a concept it basically says that you are the creator and this is the primary, the secondary is just some consequences of certain laws that assert that certain things can only be done by the creator or with permission of the creator. There are remnants of this still seen that the copyright ceases in relation to the death of the work's creator - and not in relation to the work's creation date.

It loses all meaning linguistically, if you spell it out: the right to copy. A what now? A right as in human rights? The right to vote? And for what, copying? What about copyrighting physical objects? We have no StarTrek replicators. Those terms were coined before digital copy was available. And like coining it was meant, as in minting. About after the book press was invented. There was no copy right with handwritten books, and those were copied a lot. I think it got an overhaul when music recordings became possible.

But enough philosophicals. Trivially, if you do not publish your stuff, how could anyone violate your copyright. So publishing the item will make it public and therefore documented with you being the creator of the work and the time.

Sorry for ranting and babbling. This whole topic is too complicated and the protection granted by laws should not be dependent on the money of either party. It violates my sense of morals.

Like Reply

Eris Lord Freedom269 days ago

In the US, registration is not required for copyright, but it changes the amount that you can win in court over a copyright violation. (This may be a violation of the Berne Convention but the only way to find out would be someone not in the US, pushing for a copyright case in the US, not getting the results they wanted, and then taking it to an international venue.) Without registration, you can only sue for provable damages; for registered works, you can push for more than that.

For what kind of rights: Copyright in the US is a limited-term economic monopoly. It covers copying, public performance, derivatives (like translations; what else counts as "derivative" is a game for lawyers) and a few ancillary rights. In the US, copyright does not cover "moral rights" that exist in Europe and some other places. Music recordings have their own special (nightmare) section of the law.

Unpublished works are copyrighted - this is relevant for things like "an author's rough draft of a novel"; someone can't grab it and publish without permission. Copyright exists/is granted the moment a thing is put in "fixed form." An unpublished game in your cloud storage is copyrighted; if someone hacks your account and steals it, they can't (legally) publish it without your consent.

There are rules about updates and new editions that would apply to registration of video games. I don't know the details, just that books have been doing expanded/updated editions for ages.

(But also: yeah, this is not a good venue for discussing the philosophy of copyright.)

Like Reply

View more in thread

itch.io

Viewing post in Copyright Infringement