quote: Original post by Mayrel

Original post by CheeseGrater
I don''t know where so many people get misinformation like this… but in case anyone believes this, the above statement is completely wrong.

quote:
US Code, 17.107
the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright

Clear?

quote:

Scholarship and research, etc are allowing for quotation, I believe. My univeristy made it a practice to pay for ''multiple copies for classroom use'' since students had a habit of taking the stuff home with them, which actually violates this section.

Also, the provisions here are a far cry from the vauge ''educational purposes.'' Thank you for the specifity.

Also note that cloning a game isn''t necessarily a violation of copyright. Copyright doesn''t apply to ideas or procedures, so the way in which a game operates can''t be copyrighted. However, text, images and music can be copyrighted.

And, of course, characters and names can be trademarked, which provides a level of protection beyond copyright. (Which only protects specific works or artwork depciting the character.)

quote:

In the United States, you may not make any unauthorized copies of, well _any_ material that hasn''t specifically been placed in the public domain or otherwise licensed for redistibution. You also may not use anyone else''s characters or logos without permission. No exceptions, no excuses.

This is partly true. It is always illegal to violate copyright. However, in order to claim statutory damages or fees, the copyright owner must register his work with the Library of Congress *before* the copyright infringement.


I thought you could sue without registration, but just for a smaller cash award.

quote:

Well, excepting parodies.

I couldn''t find anything specifically pertaining to parodies, which means that, unless there''s a precedent somewhere, parodies are a violation.



There''s precedent. Parodies are a well-known exception to trademark law. Copyright laws really don''t apply, since parodies are inspired works sharing characters, not word for word copies.

quote:

Finally, many people say that making backup copies of software is illegal, many people say it is legal. The US Code, he say:

17.117a
it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: … (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes
only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

So, it is perfectly legal to make copies of a computer program for archival purposes, only. ''Archiving'' your software on your website is not legal if you allow others to download it - that counts as distribution.



Backups are provided for in the copyright law, but it''s still questionable wether they can be disallowed in software licenses. (Which they sometimes are, though not all companies do this)

If your specificially going to reproduce a Sierra game and don''t care about any type of accolaids or profits. You may want to contact them, they have been releasing ALL sorts of engines, with strangle hold contracts. Example Tribes 2. I personally would do as suggested above and change everything slightly and keep your work under your name. Hell look they do the same thing to themselves. Kings quest...Heroes Quest their the same freakn game!

Mayrel, I believe your quotation may have missed some key points. However I am more familiar with UK copyright law than US copyright law.

"the fair use of a copyrighted work, [...] for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright"

...is not the same as saying...

"purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is fair use" .

I would be very surprised if there was not an additional clause in there which specified just how much could be copied and it still considered 'fair use'.

Here's a quote for you, from http://fairuse.stanford.edu/rice.html. Note especially the bit I added emphasis to:
"The law lists the following factors as the ones to be evaluated in determining whether a particular use of a copyrighted work is a permitted "fair use," rather than an infringement of the copyright:

- the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

- the nature of the copyrighted work;

- the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and

- the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Although all of these factors will be considered, the last factor is the most important in determining whether a particular use is "fair." Where a work is available for purchase or license from the copyright owner in the medium or format desired, copying of all or a significant portion of the work in lieu of purchasing or licensing a sufficient number of "authorized" copies would be presumptively unfair. Where only a small portion of a work is to be copied and the work would not be used if purchase or licensing of a sufficient number of authorized copies were required, the intended use is more likely to be found to be fair.

A federal appeals court recently decided an important copyright fair use case involving coursepacks. In Princeton University Press, et.al. v. Michigan Document Services, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concluded that the copying of excerpts from books and other publications by a commercial copy service without the payment of fees to the copyright holders to create coursepacks for university students was not fair use. The size of the offending excerpts varied from 30 percent to as little as 5 percent of the original publications. Although the opinion in this case is not binding in California, it is consistent with prior cases from other courts, and there is a reasonable likelihood that the California federal courts would reach a similar conclusion on similar facts."

This implies that you left out important parts of the law, since I expect that Condoleezza Rice is fairly well-informed...

Edited by - Kylotan on November 12, 2001 9:18:06 PM

not to bitch but the correct quote is

"All your base are belong to us"

it''s such a classic!

quote: Original post by Mayrel

If we imagine that the game is for educational purposes, and a game released on GameDev quite probably would be, we can assume that it passes this test. Clearly, if the copying is not for educational use (or otherwise exempt under sections 107, 108 and 110), then it doesn''t pass this test.

What? That''s a gross misinterpretation of the law. If you made one copy, that might be educational use, but I _highly_ doubt it.

Even then, that''s not an argument for distributing the final product, since people playing the game isn''t ''educational.''

This clause is to reproduce _short passages_ for educational use. So a book on computer graphics can contain a picture of Leisure Suit Larry (copyrighted artwork) if it''s cited properly. Even an educational book wouldn''t be able to get away with providing all the artwork from the game, or even a sigfinigant portion of the game.

quote: Original post by Anarchi
I have recently emailed Sierra but have not received a response yet, and I doubt that I will anyway.

And now they provably knew about your attempt, so under US trademark law they will be forced to sue you if you proceed. (Or lose their trademark on Larry.)

quote:
I specifically would like to create a Sierra Larry game because many people have requested someone to create it since it is a favorite of many gamers, and since Larry 8 was abandoned I decided to look into it and make a new version for the public. I guess I could rename the characters and redraw the sprites, but this will be alot of work, I was actually going to rip the sprites from the previous games - much easier.

That''s not only trademark violation (which you _might_ get away with) that''s also copyright violation. Do _not_ rip the sprites if you want to stay out of court. They are still actively selling the games this artwork belongs to (in collections).

quote:
As for Public domain software, is this the same license as Linux software as seen at sourceforge.com? If I make the source code available to the public will it be legal? Or would I still need permission?

Public domain is no license at all. It means you voluntarily give up all copyright rights that you have. You won''t be able to do this with your game because you don''t own the art assets or the characters.

Linux software at sourceforge is generally GPL. This is _very_ different from public domain. Read about the GPL at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html

And finally, even if you release the source code, even if you never make a dime from the game, making a Larry game without Sierra''s _written_ permission will be illegal.