To copyright a theme...

[Giggleton]

I doubt this will be upheld, I mean it's just crazy. Or is copyright itself crazy? Or am I crazy?

"This time around, however, Judge Jones rejected 6waves' argument. In doing so, he took an expansive view of which parts of a game can actually be protected by copyright. While the basic rules and idea of Triple Town are still freely copyable, Jones noted that Spry Fox can claim copyright protection for things like "plot, theme, dialogue, mood, setting, pace, and character" (Jones compared games to movie screenplays in this regard). And while 6waves' Yeti Town didn't precisely copy any of these elements from Triple Town, the judge found the similarities in these areas were great enough to let the case go forward. "

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/1...t-game-clones/

[JD Gumby]

Yeah. Old news that goes against pretty much every decision in the USA since the 80s on the matter of game clones and play-alikes that don't copy the code, script, and art/sound assets (which are copyrightable)...

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by JD Gumby

Yeah. Old news that goes against pretty much every decision in the USA since the 80s on the matter of game clones and play-alikes that don't copy the code, script, and art/sound assets (which are copyrightable)...

But if someone has a look at the code, as those in this case did and then goes on to write their "own" code, what then??

Transmogrify into the book realm and that of characters and setting, i.e. fanfiction, is all permissible then??

[DrNefario]

They settled - essentially 6waves gave in - so there won't be a legal decision.

[Ekaros]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

But if someone has a look at the code, as those in this case did and then goes on to write their "own" code, what then??

Transmogrify into the book realm and that of characters and setting, i.e. fanfiction, is all permissible then??

No put code can obviously be patented. And then you can sue ;D

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

They settled - essentially 6waves gave in - so there won't be a legal decision.

That is upsetting.

But still my question remains, If I have one screen open showing the source of a piece of software while I attempt to reword the code into another piece of software on another screen, how much of the original code needs to be reworded so that my code can be considered non-infringing? Apply this to every creative endeavor.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

"plot, theme, dialogue, mood, setting, pace, and character"

This is the part that has me the most concerned. Nowhere does it mention that they copied actual code from the other game. This is entirely about concepts, just like the "you touch something on a screen and something else happens" concept patent.

Its a bit of a shame that this one didn't go to trial, because it would've made a great acid test on just how broad the current US courts will let IP law become.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

That is upsetting.

But still my question remains, If I have one screen open showing the source of a piece of software while I attempt to reword the code into another piece of software on another screen, how much of the original code needs to be reworded so that my code can be considered non-infringing? Apply this to every creative endeavor.

There's a few tricky issues if the coders had access to the original source code as part of their employment. So I'll skip that as I don't know enough about it.

Reverse engineering of software and then re-implementing it is perfectly legal in many parts of the world. However, in order to have a strong defence that you didn't copy code it's more common to do a clean room implementation, often where one group disassembles the software to find out how it works and what it does, they can then document the way the software should work but not how it actually does work.

Another group can then re-implement the software based on that documentation. That way should any code end up working the same which would potentially have led to claims of copyright infringement, there's evidence to show no copying has taken place.

There isn't always a split between those who reverse and those who code though, see for example Richard Stallman's account of his time at MIT. The book is freely available online and an interesting read whether you agree with him or not imo.

Cloning and what is/is not legal is still a pretty open topic. There's been some high profile cases of small companies having their games cloned by large companies see Tiny Tower. However in this case, the code may be totally different whilst the art/theme is very similar/cloned but not actually copied. The UI layout it can probably be argued has been copied, but then is layout copyrightable/protectable by any laws, I'm not sure.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by JoeD

Cloning and what is/is not legal is still a pretty open topic. There's been some high profile cases of small companies having their games cloned by large companies see Tiny Tower. However in this case, the code may be totally different whilst the art/theme is very similar/cloned but not actually copied. The UI layout it can probably be argued has been copied, but then is layout copyrightable/protectable by any laws, I'm not sure.

No one is sure of anything, and it's been that way for a long time, possibly forever. Oh well.

[RainingLemur]

Originally Posted by teh603

This is the part that has me the most concerned. Nowhere does it mention that they copied actual code from the other game. This is entirely about concepts, just like the "you touch something on a screen and something else happens" concept patent.

Its a bit of a shame that this one didn't go to trial, because it would've made a great acid test on just how broad the current US courts will let IP law become.

It certainly would have been interesting to see the outcome, at least. If, for nothing else, to see another crap-storm of patent-war threads here with interesting conversations.

[derangedhermit]

Do you think the judge comparing a video game to a screenplay is unreasonable? Is a video game like other works of creation, like novels or screenplays, or is it different?

Do you think changes in "plot, theme, dialogue, mood, setting, pace, and character" have value?

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by derangedhermit

Do you think the judge comparing a video game to a screenplay is unreasonable? Is a video game like other works of creation, like novels or screenplays, or is it different?

Do you think changes in "plot, theme, dialogue, mood, setting, pace, and character" have value?

It's like any other creative work imo. Some games have a narrative depth much like books and movies do. Other games have very shallow plots/themes (just as some movies do). The tricky part is knowing how much similarity is just similarity and when it becomes copying.

Take two films about a huge asteroid coming to destroy the earth and sending up a rag tag group of people to prevent it. Quite similar plots, but would it be considered copying? Had the two not been released at the same time, would that have altered the view of copying for the later released one?

In some cases copying is obvious but there's a fine line between inspiration and copying and the line imo gets a little fuzzy.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by JoeD

It's like any other creative work imo. Some games have a narrative depth much like books and movies do. Other games have very shallow plots/themes (just as some movies do). The tricky part is knowing how much similarity is just similarity and when it becomes copying.

Take two films about a huge asteroid coming to destroy the earth and sending up a rag tag group of people to prevent it. Quite similar plots, but would it be considered copying? Had the two not been released at the same time, would that have altered the view of copying for the later released one?

In some cases copying is obvious but there's a fine line between inspiration and copying and the line imo gets a little fuzzy.

I don't think it's fuzzy at all, it's quite possible that the writers of the two films you mentioned had no idea what the other was writing, but it is far more possible that they were told to write the films based on other factors.

A few scientists in a few observatories decide to look up into the night sky, they notice things moving, they talk about these things, others think about these things, some write about these things, where does the inspiration begin?? And who is responsible?

Everyone.

Copying is what we do best. I don't think it is natural to limit what we exist to do.

[Jozawun]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I don't think it's fuzzy at all, it's quite possible that the writers of the two films you mentioned had no idea what the other was writing, but it is far more possible that they were told to write the films based on other factors.

A few scientists in a few observatories decide to look up into the night sky, they notice things moving, they talk about these things, others think about these things, some write about these things, where does the inspiration begin?? And who is responsible?

Everyone.

Copying is what we do best. I don't think it is natural to limit what we exist to do.

Copyright infringement is in our DNA; so copyright enforcement denies us our humanity.
I think you've got them now, Giggles old son.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I don't think it's fuzzy at all, it's quite possible that the writers of the two films you mentioned had no idea what the other was writing, but it is far more possible that they were told to write the films based on other factors.

A few scientists in a few observatories decide to look up into the night sky, they notice things moving, they talk about these things, others think about these things, some write about these things, where does the inspiration begin?? And who is responsible?

Everyone.

Copying is what we do best. I don't think it is natural to limit what we exist to do.

If copying is what we do best whya ren't we all rich and famous. Why aren't our children clones of perfect children.

Copying is for the lazy, dishonest and the non-creative. It is not something to aspire to. If it is what you do best, then by all means copy as you are probably severely limited by lack of intelligence in your other options in life. Some people just are through no fault of their own.

Helen