Legal Question

Discussion and feedback on Construct 2

Post » Wed May 02, 2012 2:54 pm

Thanks for it. Nice summary.
B
103
S
27
G
15
Posts: 1,150
Reputation: 17,222

Post » Wed May 02, 2012 11:08 pm

[QUOTE=VampyricalCurse] [QUOTE=Wink] It's only illegal if you get caught    [/QUOTE]

Ain't it?

I've seen many (MANY) free a game that uses so called copyrighted material and nothing ever happened. Truth is, if the owners of the material feel like yer game it's a threat, they will ask you to stop, just like crap company Square Enix got scared of a beautiful non-profit indie game. and shut it down. If you are going to do something like this and FREE, keep it secret until it's complete and keep the testing around to a trusted circle of people. Once it's complete, release it in all it's glory and give the finger to crap corps. like SE. Just hide where it really came from.

Not ALL companies care though, believe it or not, some cool companies are actually left.[/QUOTE]

I dont think this is a very fair comment to be honest.

Saying a company is crap just because they shut down a product that was a recreation of 'their' game without 'their' permission is exactly what I would expect if i was in their shoes.

The fact that the game is really well done only makes it worse. Square makes a lot of money remaking their older games and fans are happy to play them. Chrono trigger is a classic game - worthy of a remake, but to do it without the permission of square is just silly. If they have the talent - why not make an original game?
ImageImage
B
74
S
17
G
6
Posts: 1,039
Reputation: 10,605

Post » Thu May 03, 2012 3:13 am

[QUOTE=GenkiGenga]
I dont think this is a very fair comment to be honest.

Saying a company is crap just because they shut down a product that was a recreation of 'their' game without 'their' permission is exactly what I would expect if i was in their shoes.

The fact that the game is really well done only makes it worse. Square makes a lot of money remaking their older games and fans are happy to play them. Chrono trigger is a classic game - worthy of a remake, but to do it without the permission of square is just silly. If they have the talent - why not make an original game?[/QUOTE]

No, that is not the reason why I said that about Square Enix. SE are a crappy company, they have been releasing bad games since they have started. They have also destroyed the FF Franchise with the advent of FFXIII... I thought they learned from the horror that was FFX-2. However, SQUARESOFT was a great company with a tragic fate. I am not gonna get into details, because this is not what this thread is about.

Back on topic: Yeah, the game is REALLY well done, something that Square Enix cannot seem to grasp with their games. CT it's a game worthy of a true remake as is FFVII. Re-releases aren't remakes (they do have some true remakes though, like FFIII and FFIV), SE are too busy with their fancy graphics and to care about anything gameplay worthy or remakes, so I support what this guys were doing, it was even free. At the end of the day, SE do hold the rights to these franchises and they have the power to do as they please with them... of course given you get caught in time. You say it's silly that they did this without SE permission, but I think it's even sillier to pay SE for a game you aren't planning to sell. What WAS silly, was them advertising the game like they did. Did SE HAVE to do this? Nope, they just decided to cos the game was too good, much better than any "remake" they have ever done. Were they wrong? That's up to each person to decide and I decide they were. You, however, might think otherwise and that's fine!
B
47
S
10
G
6
Posts: 455
Reputation: 8,326

Post » Thu May 03, 2012 7:13 am

Im happy to agree to disagree with you about Square Enix. I think they are a great company (despite what I think about the recent FF's).

But at the end of the day this has nothing to do with Square - Its about knowing that what you create is yours. Big company or small - we all deserve to have this right.
ImageImage
B
74
S
17
G
6
Posts: 1,039
Reputation: 10,605

Post » Thu May 03, 2012 3:37 pm

You think it's ok to give away someone else's work for free?
Without asking them you're going to choose to take away any of their future sales?

The graphics are textured but its essentially a copy and paste of the entire rest of the game.
It can cost a company hundreds of thousands of dollars to hire awesome designers to design and develop a world, its locations, histories, species and characters, clothing and technology styles, voices and personalities.

Companies and communities can and do make things using other people's Intellectual Property all the time because they ASK FIRST. And if they say no? That's saved everyone a metric butt-tonne of time.

You clearly haven't had any experience in industry, but these are not giant grey buildings that eat money. We're talking about groups of people who risk their own money on trying to make something cool, and yes make profit.
I find it really weird that most people have jobs which they do SOLELY for the money. "If it wasn't for the money, I'd quit" they say. But if someone else makes even more profit than you, now they're doing something immoral? This is "It's ok when I do it but awful if they do it" thinking.

If the group *really* want to continue with the remake, make a deal with the company. They might even be able to sell the work they've done to Square so they can bring out a HD revamp of an old classic, as is happening with other games. For all you know Square Enix could already making a HD remake themselves.

Loving a game does not make it your property.Blam2012-05-03 15:46:30
B
21
S
7
G
3
Posts: 33
Reputation: 4,522

Post » Thu May 03, 2012 4:26 pm

Not even gonna bother to discuss this any further... one thing though... what in blazes are you talking about being copy and paste job? Do you even know what Chrono Trigger is? Did you even bother to read through the lines?
B
47
S
10
G
6
Posts: 455
Reputation: 8,326

Post » Tue May 08, 2012 2:34 pm

Did any of you ppl even manage to get a reply from companies when you try get permission? I personaly have this huge problem to even get any response from the copyright holders no mater if its a song or a character, they never respond to messages. Even from few popular resources i know that iam not the only one with this problem when it goes to get legaly permission for using copyrighted material in the first place so i asume it becomes easily the cause of why many start not to bother even try get the permission when the companies dont bother to ever reply.
Personaly i see nothing good about copyrights and in my opinion, only those exposing theyr actual identification will more likely get in trouble for using copyrighted material than the anonymous ones.
If the ilegal project then gets too popular, then the company will more likely notice and decide in taking posible actions as they risc of loosing customers.
But hey, not all companies seem to be so touchee.
Ppl seem to be free to make MLP projects without the owners minding to get a huge fanbase from it for example.
B
43
S
9
G
5
Posts: 231
Reputation: 7,291

Post » Fri Jul 20, 2012 1:20 pm

It has been long enough that this is probably unlawful thread necromancy, but I feel this thread has left the subject detrimental and may wane people from doing this which they could do in fear of legal action. I'm not a lawyer as anyone before, but I'm legally conscious. Laws are made to protect, not attack. You will never have a law suit that costs you money unless you terrorize, slander, or charge someone else money for something which you shouldn't have charged them for.

Using Construct 2 you will almost never have to fear someone attacking you for patent unless you rip off someone else's Construct 2 game. If you make a game just like Mario or Sonic, but implement all your own features, graphics, and orientation using Construct 2, you will be totally okay. In recent law, the obvious copycat Samsung Galaxy S3 tablet was under fire from the iPad3. Apple lost the case in the UK because tablets are now generic, and the two methods were considered different enough even though the intended market and goal were identical.

If you're using Trademark or characters in any way that isn't gaining you financial profit or slandering them, you will almost never have a law suit. If the owner of the Trademark decides to flex their muscles, they can order a seize and desist followed by court order if you don't follow through with their demands(and if they can find you-- if you upload your game to a web server like Scirra's site, they would get the seize and desist, and Scirra would undoubtedly comply and privately notify you what happened. If you don't take credit for your work, the credit falls onto the host). There may be literally a thousand Mario flash games on the internet which Nintendo could easily get rid of. The reason they still exist consistently and multiply is that it's flattering, good advertising, and cheaper for Nintendo to not hire someone to take care of it. If something graphic depicting Mario characters got in the news, they might do something about it, but System Every Tick-> 'noharm'='nofoul'. On this same subject, in my six degrees of separation table, I know a girl who was helping work with a guy that was making a Halo mod for Counter Strike Source. The intention was to take the Source Engine and make it as much like Halo as possible. Including that one of their members ripped the models and textures off of the Halo 2 disc and they were using the characters and vehicles as a part of their project. When the project got big, Microsoft ordered them to stop on account of the fact that they were making a game which could not be told apart from Halo 2 on a free engine and it could cut into future sales if there was a free version of it that you could get so long as you had the source engine on your computer. What this team was doing was an obvious ripoff, and months of work had been lost, but there was no lawsuit or financial damage.

Case in point, technically, a Trademark prevents you from blatantly using features from another company, but most of the time a big name company won't care unless you garner a serious amount of attention and you may be harmful. If I made a hack n' slash game, and then you made a hack n' slash game with my main character as one of the bosses, I would be flattered. I would be bothered, however, if that character was the selling point of the game, you were making money on it, and it wasn't discussed with me first. If I were a big name company and you were getting a lot of attention for my property, I would probably do something about it. Otherwise, knock your socks off! There's a lot of discretion involved with law, and not a whole lot someone can do to you financially if you're not making money.

My last big example(I promise) is South Park. They always request permission for their uses of celebrity names and media influences, and they don't always get it. Everyone knows what the episode of Chimpokomon was about, but it was in good parody(and not necessarily slanderous). Saying 'but yeah, everyone laughs at South Park', is not true. I don't laugh at South Park. I can see why anyone would find it offensive and not want to be involved with it. South Park makes a lot of money, and will make fun of whatever they want careful about what is legal and what isn't with the use of disclaimer. Parody is fair use, free to play games built around similar ideals is fair use, slander is not, ripping off hard work is not. There's a game on XBox Live Arcade called Angry Fish which is a shameless ripoff of you-know-what and costs a buck. It's still there. Sony's obvious Smash Brother's ripoff is the first Smash Brother's clone that's coming to America(!'thefirstmade') because in Japan Smash Brother's has been out long enough that it can legally be considered a genre now.

Chances are pretty slim that you won't run into the legal issue on pretty much any regard, but there are obvious reasons why you could. Being original on characters and art will pretty much keep you covered. Concepts are considered generic after you can name three games that do what you want. Small features that you take will go unnoticed to most people, and, most of all remember: to take ideas from one source is called plagiarism, but taking ideas from a group of people is called research!

Edit:I should note that this point is mostly American law, but internationally it seems to stand in most cases. the first example with the iPad and the Galaxy Tab is a funny one now that I checked my sources. The Galaxy Tab has been banned for sale in America, although Apple didn't win any money on it. It's legal to sell in the UK though, on account of the iPad "being cooler". Weird.Stercus2012-07-20 13:26:40
B
6
Posts: 8
Reputation: 716

Post » Fri Jul 20, 2012 2:46 pm

I think it also highly depends on the company that you may be borrowing assets from. Case in point: Nintendo. I think they're a little less litigious when it comes to people using sprite sheets from their old NES/SNES games in free PC games. I mean, if you go to the NewGrounds website, there are literally hundreds of platformer style games using their assets. Another couple games which heavily borrow graphics from Konami, Capcom, Nintendo, etc is Super Mario Crossover, another is Mario Kingdom Fusion which I believe was written in Game Maker.

Reasons why they might allow this:
1. They don't produce computer games, so maybe those games don't compete with their primary market
2. Fan games are non profit
3. Fan games may help to promote their image (assuming they are not used inappropriately)
B
30
S
6
G
8
Posts: 232
Reputation: 6,119

Post » Fri Jul 20, 2012 8:17 pm

TLDR, but have to say so there is no thing in the world like "Intellectual Property". The whole term "Intellectual Property" is nothing more than juristical fantasy as non physical things cant be anyones property.

The thing is not about someone owns something but about laws that grants someone legal monopoly to do some things. laws about copyright gives someone monopoly right to copy something but this dont mean they own something. They only have right to forbid anyone else to copy things.

Understanding of this legal joke is most important thing to undesrtand how copytights or trademarks or panetst work.
Second most important thing to understand is so there is a lot laws linked to this joke and non of them linked together. Patents have nothing to do with copyrights and copyrights have nothing common with patents.Goury2012-07-20 20:18:15
B
18
S
3
G
4
Posts: 46
Reputation: 3,873

PreviousNext

Return to Construct 2 General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gamecorpstudio and 16 guests