Copyright: two questions

Copyright and Trademarks are two very different things. Copyright is granted to original works of specific types, or compilations. So like, recipes for example, are not covered by copyright, but cookbooks are. Titles are also not covered by copyright, so you might find ten completely different songs called “Love Story”.

Trademarks, however, must be registered. TARDIS, for example, is probably covered by a trademark.

Now as pertaining to the example of the badly remembered song lyrics, things that are substantially modified are considered fair use under copyright law, so that excerpt is probably safe. In addition, copyright law provides a great deal of leeway to use in the form of parody, and it’s quite obvious that the lyrics transformed here qualify as parody.

If you explicitly used word for word lyrics, it would probably be ideal to credit the songwriter or whoever owns the copyright to that song.

If someone was to use copyrighted or trademarked content in a game, it probably would be relatively safe as long as the game was not entered in a competition or used to make money, unless the author had the express permission of the copyright owner. Of course in the example of fan fiction (of which there are also many examples of fan interactive fiction) the author simply has to hope they won’t be pursued by lawyers.

This leads us to software copyrights. Technically, any game we write contains code copyright to the author of the game system. If we include any extensions, we’re including code copyright by the extension authors. It’s assumed, I suppose, that extension authors aren’t interested in pursuing the authors of games who use them.

Now, there are games where people have added grey area content to their games, such as say, “public domain” clip art images or media files. I must confess that I myself once included a MIDI file of unknown origin in a game for a sound effect. It could be argued that this grey area is covered by the “transformative use” portion of copyright law.

Transformative use is best argued in the form of parody, but can also be covered by criticism or analyzing. Now, if a text adventure was considered a parody of real life, you could probably throw any copyrighted material in it you want as long as you were satirizing the original content. You’d be surprised how far that law goes in sheltering the author of the infringing work if it’s a parody.

But you would have to be substantially transforming the original work, I suppose. If the original was song lyrics and you transformed them while making it funny, you can count on copyright law protecting you.

In the case of extensions which are posted on the Inform 7 site, I believe that the authors specifically license use by anybody, provided attribution is made. The authors retain the copyrights.

Robert Rothman

There are two related questions:

  1. Does the (mis-)quotation of a song constitute a technical copyright infringement? (Meaning, am I violating the letter of a law, even if no one ever found out, or even if someone found out but no action was taken?)
  2. Does the (mis-)quotation of a song constitute, to its copyright holders, perception of an actionable copyright infringement? (Meaning, will someone institute and pursue litigation against me, whether or not they have a good case?)

For the first, we can probably all agree that context is everything, and that “parody” (which might be neither satirical nor humorous) is protective. Trouble is, any law that uses a standard like “total concept and feel” is necessarily going to be subjective.

For the second, someone might seek legal action against you for a perceived infringement, regardless of whether you’ve done anything wrong. Even if you’ve followed the letter of the law, a copyright holder with a personality disorder and too much time on his hands might Google his song lyrics, trolling for a fight. The outcome probably depends as much on the copyright holder’s circumstances, and yours, as it does on the degree of technical copyright infringement. From a purely practical standpoint, lawyers usually prefer cases with a good chance of yielding substantial economic damages for their clients. If you are perceived as having made money off the perceived infringement, or having deep pockets in general, or have a wide repertoire of other intellectual property, you’d more likely be a target.

When I contacted the author of a game (freeware) I wanted to make a spin off from (not a sequel), I got conflicting messages that using his characters, sets, props, and maps would be considered a copyright violation, then he goes on to say he doesn’t mind if I make a similar game using the contents of his game.

What does that mean?

By the way, I took out the appearance of the characters and only made reference to them, but I’m still not sure about the sets and props.
Can you copyright a utility closet and a copy machine?

PS: Out of poor spelling he avoided a potential lawsuit, by making Xerox Zerox.

The headline for this article caught my eye; evidently, somebody is suing somebody else for hiring an advertising model who happens to bear a physical resemblance to the plaintiff.

cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/ … tag=exclsv

So you’re all on notice: If anybody uses a character who is a fat guy with a goatee, I’m gonna sue your ass! :laughing:

Robert Rothman

In the Super C-U-T-E commercial she really looks like her!
youtube.com/watch?v=FqIP6xVB6U8
Hanna Montana should be the one singing it.

Kim Kardashian wishes she could look like her!
youtube.com/watch?v=3nTuHFMZsrs

I could have sworn that somebody posted a link (or maybe mentioned a book) about how to obtain permission to quote lyrics. Is my mind playing tricks on me? I can’t find that now.

I’ve decided that I’ll feel better about myself if I ask for permission, and find some other solution if I don’t get it.

Here’s an interesting article about software copyrights and who owns what. Basically, the developer licenses development tools, so the creator of the development tool has no real claim over the software produced with that system.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/software-application-development-agreements-copyright-29584.html

Note that that article is written from the point of view of a contractor – it’s about the sort of contract you’d write to do development work for hire. The concerns there don’t apply to software you write for yourself on your own time. (Nor to software you write as a regular full-time employee – that’s covered by your employment agreement.)

Thank you sir, for linking me to the stupidest thing I’ve read all week.