| Author |
Message |
Mats W (Kålroten)
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 3:20 pm: | |
I am thinking of publishing a game in Zillions that earlier has been published as physical board games "Taifho" or "Traverse". I will name it "Platonic Halma". I've been thinking about the copyright issue. Is it good enough to change the name? I've noticed that there are implementations in Zillions of previous physical board games, issued by game companies. So it's ok then?
Mats |
Andreas Kaufmann (Andreas)
| | Posted on Saturday, February 18, 2006 - 6:45 am: | |
Yes, you need to change the name because 'Taifho' is probably a trademark. Besides this you should also check if the game is patented and the patent not expired yet (usually 20 years). In this case you need a license from patent holder before you can publish the game. |
Mats W (Kålroten)
| | Posted on Saturday, February 18, 2006 - 8:36 am: | |
Andreas, thanks for the info. I can't find the game searching through the database of descriptions in US Patent office. Neither can I find the inventor's name in the database. It was invented in the seventies, but the last rule was added in 1985. I suppose I can publish it, then, under another name. |
Mats W (Kålroten)
| | Posted on Saturday, February 18, 2006 - 8:50 am: | |
It's on now, by the way:
PlatonicHalma
and a variant which is simpler and perhaps plays stronger:
PythagoreicHalma |
Mats W (Kålroten)
| | Posted on Saturday, February 18, 2006 - 10:37 am: | |
And now they are bugfixed, too. So it's better to download from the below links than from Zillions. (I am totally fed up with bugs.)
PlatonicHalma.zip
PythagoreicHalma |
Greg Schmidt (Gschmidt)
| | Posted on Saturday, February 18, 2006 - 5:26 pm: | |
[Besides this you should also check if the game is patented and the patent not expired yet (usually 20 years).]
In addition to patents, you should also consider copyright violations as well. |
Mats W (Kålroten)
| | Posted on Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 5:37 am: | |
But this is somewhat over-cautious, isn't it? If I declare who is the inventor then I haven't stolen the idea, and I cannot register a patent or claim the copyright for myself. Any board game company, or the inventor, must be glad to see that I contribute to the game's popularization by implementing it in Zillions. If any person claims the sole rights for a software implementation, the it's only to remove it from Zillions.
By the way, Panos Louridas, the inventor of Bario, who has in earlier decades tried to promote Bario, and discussed it with grandmasters, was obviously pleased to see that it is now implemented in Zillions. But he immediately communicated that I hadn't got the promotion rules right. So I have to fix that later. |
Greg Schmidt (Gschmidt)
| | Posted on Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 11:49 am: | |
[Any board game company, or the inventor, must be glad to see that I contribute to the game's popularization by implementing it in Zillions.]
One might think so, but if the inventor plans on marketing the game they could also view it as competition. I saw this occur several years ago when Rubik's cube was acquired by a company which revived the product. There were several web sites that offered nice simulations of the cube that were effectively shut down by their attorneys. While many of the website proprieters believed they were actually increasing the popularity of the cube, the company did not share in that belief. Although here, I believe the issue involved was trademark violation. Also, I am aware of one site that apparently worked around the problem by a name change - so it's not always clear cut.
Take a look at their copyright notice at:
http://www.rubiks.com/lvl3/index_lvl3.cfm?lan=eng&lvl1=inform&lvl2=contct&lvl3=useofr
I suppose I am being overly cautious in my assessment, you might be right about that, and yours may be a completely different situation. Certainly if someone became aware of infringement, they would likely correct the situation immediately - but could they still claim damages? Keep in mind I am not an attorney, so I am unable to offer any real advice. There are many factors involved and I'm just making some observations of questionable value. |
Karl Scherer (Karl)
| | Posted on Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 12:53 pm: | |
If in doubt, leave it out.
I suggest it is always more polite, ethical and respectfull to the inventor if you do NOT copy anything you are not 100 percent sure of being allowed to copy.
Always get permission of the copyright holder.
By the way:
As I have stated before, all my Zillions games and designs are free to be used (not abused) as templates for your own (non-commercial) games as long as you quote the source.
Cheers, Karl Scherer |
Mats W (Kålroten)
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 1:56 am: | |
I have waited for an e-mail response from the inventor for two weeks now. In this case I think it's more polite to implement the game to show everybody what a good idea it is. And then one can remove it if the inventor demands it. In books one can copy the text of another author as long as one gives a reference.
Test it! Playing strength is now improved. PlatonicHalma. |
Derek Nalls (Omegaman)
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 9:17 pm: | |
US Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/whatis.htm
Copyrights are international under the Berne Convention.
Patents are strictly national in force. Despite attempts, the terms of international treaties have never been successfully negotiated.
For instance, this means that a working software program (other than one copyrighted by the inventor) which plays a particular board game carrying a current US Patent can be developed, freely distributed and used by people in ALL of the other 200 or so nations of the world legally and without restriction.
Just don't violate any applicable copyright (or trademark) which may also exist. This may mean that the original name of the game cannot be safely used. |
Karl Scherer (Karl)
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 1:22 am: | |
Doesn't this mean that the Zillions user in
the country of the copyright holder are then
playing the game illegaly.
I don't think that is a very fair approach to someones copyright.
Our goal should be to share peacefully, not try to find legal loopholes which anyway only work in some (or most cases) for some (or even most) people.
A Zillions game published on the Zillions home page is distributed worldwide, hence a breach of copyright somehow somewhere is a breach of copyright full stop.
Lets respect each others intellectual property.
If you want to ignore ethics, you can do whatever you want anyway.
But you have to make that up with yourself in the end. In this case I think you do not need any justification for what you are doing anyway.
Good work ethics does not need legal loopholes, only a loving heart. :-) |
Derek Nalls (Omegaman)
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 7:30 am: | |
Since you wish to expand the scope of this conversation beyond a dry, objective legal interpretation into ethics ...
My assessment of conversations I have read upon various discussion boards is that most board game and chess variant hobbyists are contemptuous of national patents on strong moral grounds. They are rightly suspicious that patents are merely a contrived scheme to choke money out of enthusiastic players.
Moreover, any patents on chess variants (in particular) are of extremely dubious legitimacy due to their insufficient uniqueness and the public domain status of ancient games (such as chess) which they typically copy most or all of their important features from.
Besides, isn't it significant that virtually all of the best work in board games and chess variants is being willfully contributed for FREE by talented people? Despite what you say so diplomatically, this is the position you and other people with good hearts live by, instead!
[Note- None of the above is my own personal opinion which in this instance, I chose to leave unstated. Instead, it is my effort at the summarized interpretation of the opinions of many others.] |
Keith Carter (Keithc)
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 12:29 am: | |
<If I declare who is the inventor then I haven't stolen the idea, and I cannot register a patent or claim the copyright for myself. --Mats W
I don't believe violation of intellectual property rights is limited to declaring it as your own. If you exercise control over someone else's intellectual property without their permission, i.e. how and in what ways it is distributed, haven't you at least high-jacked the idea? (and declared the violated and the violator in the process?)
<Any board game company, or the inventor, must be glad to see that I contribute to the game's popularization by implementing it in Zillions. --Mats W
Why must they be glad? Couldn't the owner of an intellectual property have different priorities or quality standards other than your own?
<Besides, isn't it significant that virtually all of the best work in board games and chess variants is being willfully contributed for FREE by talented people? --Derek Nalls
It is significant. Isn't this an example of folks deciding what to do with their contributions rather than somebody else deciding for them?
<As I have stated before, all my Zillions games and designs are free to be used (not abused) as templates for your own (non-commercial) games as long as you quote the source. --Karl Scherer
This is my position on my Zillions contributions also. In fact, if contacted, I would even help.
A bit about the original question posted. I believe there was a discussion years ago on the board about copyright and patent law. I don't remember trademark being part of the discussion. Dan Troyka, an attorney, contributed. As I remember it you can probably legally do your own version of copyrighted material. I would change the name. Patent's are harder to get, provide a higher level of protection, and are probably no go for your own projects.
I faced the same decision Mats W just made with Kuba. I have a working copy of Kuba for Zillions. I declined to post it to avoid undermining a commercially active property with a free version. I don't care if posting it would be legal or not. Instead I posted Kubatoo which is a variant of Kuba. I cited to Kuba in the description to popularize that game within the scope of Zillions. I did not decide for a third party what they should let me do with their property.
FWIW I got 5 emails giving me feedback on Kuba, the most for any game I have posted. Three of them took me to task for getting Kuba wrong. |
Mats W (Kålroten)
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 1:56 pm: | |
<Any board game company, or the inventor, must be glad to see that I contribute to the game's popularization by implementing it in Zillions. -- Mats W
Why must they be glad? Couldn't the owner of an intellectual property have different priorities or quality standards other than your own? -- Keith
Our judgement typically depends on how we ourselves would react. In the general case, I would be pleased if my own "intellectual property" would come to good use. I don't think the copyright issue is a black-and-white question. In fact, few questions are. Not even abortion, the killing of innocent human lives. |
Karl Scherer (Karl)
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 12:34 am: | |
"Our judgement typically depends on how we ourselves would react. In the general case, I would be pleased if my own "intellectual property" would come to good use. I don't think the copyright issue is a black-and-white question. In fact, few questions are. Not even abortion, the killing of innocent human lives."
Indeed. The less clear cut an issue is, the more careful, sensitive and diplomatic our approach should be instead of just assuming what you think is what every other people "should" feel, which is obviously not the case.
Your words in your own ears, Mats! |
Mats W (Kålroten)
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 8:56 am: | |
There is no money or prestige involved in this case (PlatonicHalma). I take the stand that it's a good enough policy to immediately remove the program, if the inventor demands this. Had this game already been established, and commercial programs existed, and an association of players, etc, then matters would stand differently. |
Mats W (Kålroten)
| | Posted on Saturday, April 08, 2006 - 10:13 am: | |
I've realized that there already exists a Zillions implementation of this game, under the name of Chaverse. However, the rules don't follow the original fully. Here the pieces can stay on the perimeter, etc. Anyway, this should reflect upon this discussion. The "copyright" was already breached.
Mr. Jackson has created a board game "Proteus" which features chess pieces that are promoted with each turn. I asked him whether I could implement it in Zillions, but he was averse, stating that it would be a breach of copyright (although I said that it could only benefit him and the sales figures of the board game).
Anyway, it is, as Derek explains above, questionable if a chess variant (which this is, more or less) can be copyrighted. He certainly didn't invent the board and piece movement rules. The continuous promotion is an old invention, too, I believe. What can be respected, however, is his exclusive right to the physical game. But he cannot have exclusive right to software implementations. Not that I intend to implement it, but I am curious about this jealous protective attitude of ideas that are really only combinations of old ideas.
It's clear that some "new" games aren't original enough, while many games created on this site are actually so original that they could be protected with a copyright. |
|