copyright
Latest
Song used in GameCube commercial spurs lawsuit
Another day, another lawsuit.This time, the big N is the one under the legal knife -- or was, since the plaintiff dropped the case a week after filing it for currently unknown reasons. Filed on June 12th and dropped on June 18th, Morgan Creek Productions felt that Nintendo's use of a song in a Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door commercial violated copyright laws, as the song was used without proper authorization.The tune in question is "You're So Cool" by Hans Zimmer, which appeared in the film True Romance. The complaint cites that Nintendo played the commercial "sometime within the past three years," which isn't very specific. This could be one possible reason why the suit was dropped, unless the companies happened to reach a quick, under-the-table settlement.In any case, you can watch the "offending" commercial above.[Via Game Politics]
Japanese government to levy royalty fees on BD-Rs / Blu-ray recorders
We just can't see this one going over well. Reportedly, Japan's Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry and the Education, Science and Technology Ministry have jointly decided to administer royalty fees on all blank Blu-ray Discs (BD-R / BD-RE) and Blu-ray recorders. According to the entities, such a system is necessary to "compensate copyright holders for the increase in copying by individuals due to the development of new digital technologies." It was also noted that there was some disagreement on whether all HDD-based recorders should be taxed (not to mention those oh-so-innocent portable media players), and further "discussions" could make the fees applicable to even more hardware. Tax everyone for the actions of a few -- sounds like a totally infallible plan, no?
Law of the Game on Joystiq: May the Enforce Be With You
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq, a column on legal issues as they relate to video games: Today we're going to discuss enforcement of intellectual property, which is a much deeper topic than simply "what is it going to cost me?" There are enforcement considerations on both sides of the issue, and it's often a rather sticky situation for the rights holder in a copyright scenario. Interestingly enough, there are some pretty important economic and public relations considerations with regard to enforcement as well as the legal ones.There's a burden trademark owners face that isn't applied to copyright holders, specifically that those who don't protect trademarks lose them. Copyrights, on the other hand, aren't lost in this way. Theoretically, a copyright can only be lost once the time period for the copyright has elapsed, though recovery may soon be limited on so-called "orphan works" whose authors are difficult to locate. Alternatively, a copyright holder can formally release a work into the public domain, which is the equivalent of "abandonment" of a copyright.
Law of the Game on Joystiq: Much Ado About Game Night
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq, a column on legal issues as they relate to video games: Ah, the library (the place with books, not the bar). The once quiet and relaxing readers' domain has moved into the digital age, now containing computers and video games. In fact, a number of non-profits, like libraries, churches, and schools, have all found video game based events worthwhile to attract players of all ages to their establishments, or to add more entertainment to an existing event. GamePolitics actually raised an interesting question I had also received from a reader related to library and church game nights, specifically: What are the potential ramifications of holding these events from a copyright and EULA perspective? It's actually a very good question, albeit one with a fairly nebulous answer. As was pointed out by the GamePolitics piece, there are licensing services that will acquire the proper license for the public performance of a movie. Similarly, groups like ASCAP have well established licensing procedures for music. The reasoning is that public display and performance are within the bundle of rights a copyright holder has. Therefore, in order to publicly display something, you need to have the copyright holder's permission in the form of a license. Of course, if it were this simple, I wouldn't be writing a column about it.
Law of the Game on Joystiq: Legal machinations of machinima
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq, a column on legal issues as they relate to video games: It's only fitting that during the same week Red vs. Blue: Reconstruction premiers, Law of the Game on Joystiq would finally get to the topic of machinima. The game-based machinima issue boils down to one of copyrights and licensing. To be more specific, there are issues of copyright involved in all machinima productions, which give a need for licensing; which are addressed by Microsoft and Blizzard by means of a "machinima policy."For those of you who have been living in a cave -- on Mars! -- since 2003 (the year Red vs. Blue stormed the internet), machinima is the use of a pre-rendered engine to make a film. It's often been compared to digital puppetry. It's become a popular art form, in part because it minimizes production costs and requirements, and in part because it often utilizes games that people enjoy. Of course, because the art often makes use of someone else's game engine or game assets, there are a lot of copyright issues involved. Thankfully, both Microsoft and Blizzard have made many of these concerns much simpler by publishing machinima policies.
Law of the Game on Joystiq: Used to be Fair
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq, a column on legal issues as they relate to video games: Based on the comments to the last few copyright-oriented columns, it seems like everyone wants to talk about fair use. In fact, fair use is one of the most misunderstood aspects of intellectual property law, even though it's popular to play the "fair use" card in response to alleged infringement. Much of the confusion stems from the fact that there are different fair uses of copyrights and trademarks; still, other confusion stems from the fact that many of the tests for what qualifies as fair use are not terribly clear -- but I'll be clearing much of this up for you today ... hopefully.For the most part, trademark fair use is far simpler to understand than copyright fair use, so trademarks will be our first stop. Simply put, it is fair to use a trademark nominatively or for identification. That means if you re-sell a BMW, you are allowed to refer to it as a BMW. If you're writing a book or game dialog, you are allowed to refer to brand names. You are also allowed to refer to brand names in comparative advertising too; for example: "Our console has more games than the PlayStation 3!" or "Our hardware is more powerful than the Nintendo Wii!" or "Our system is more fun than the Xbox360!" Now that I've angered all the fanboys, that's pretty much the entire universe of trademark fair use. Copyright fair use, on the other hand, is far more complicated.
Company sues CBS and Apple over 'Mighty Mouse' name
A firm named Man and Machine is suing both Apple and CBS for trademark infringement for using the Mighty Mouse name to describe a computer input device. Man and Machine makes hygenic water- and chemical-resistant keyboards and mice for hospitals and laboratories. Man and Machine claims CBS (who owns the cartoon property, which may or may not be pictured) did not have the legal authority to license the name to Apple. Man and Machine holds a trademark for use of the Mighty Mouse name in conjunction with an interface controller. It claims it first used the term in 2004, but only filed for the trademark in December 2007. CBS's trademark (which covers Apple's device) was filed in July 2007, indicating its first use was in 2005 (when the Mighty Mouse came out). Thus the tension. It's unclear if Man and Machine licensed the Mighty Mouse name (as Apple did) and whether or not that will influence the outcome. [via 9-to-5 Mac]
Law of the Game on Joystiq: All derivatives, no math
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq, a column on legal issues as they relate to video games: Today's column has nothing to do with math. (Sorry to disappoint some of you!) For most, I'm sure, it's a relief -- myself included. What may not be such a relief, though, is that the topic of the day is once again copyright, which is often confusing. I've received quite a bit of e-mail over the past few months regarding game footage on YouTube or streaming footage, and how exactly that relates to copyright. What this article won't address specifically is machinima, but rest assured that Law of the Game on Joystiq will visit the territory of Red vs Blue at some point in the future.When last we discussed copyright, we talked about what was protected under the law and what was not. But what the previous article didn't spell out were the rights granted to the copyright owner. In this way, "copyright" is a bit of a misnomer, as the person who holds a "copyright" actually has a number of rights with respect to the work. In fact, there are 5 generally identified rights in the copyright: The Right to Reproduce the Work The Right to Distribute the Work The Right to Create Derivative Works The Right to Show Display the Work Publicly The Right of Public Performance Rights 4 and 5 vary with the particular type of work. The issue we're tackling today falls somewhere in the rights listed, although it's difficult to precisely label.
The possible outcomes of Blizzard's Glider lawsuit
Terra Nova put a quick post up about putting the Blizzard vs. WoW Glider case (and the Public Knowledge amicus brief) in the larger context of whether or not End User License Agreements are "good" or "bad," but even better than the post is the comments section. Lots of MMO heavies, including Richard Bartle, show up to break down just what Blizzard is trying to do with their claim against the botting software, and what they might end up doing to the industry at large.No one is against Blizzard's goal of trying to stop cheaters. But the way Blizzard is going about it puts their stance in jeopardy -- they're saying that cheating in their MMO is a violation of copyright, and that is a completely different issue. Even Bartle himsef says this is an "ends justify the means" argument -- Blizzard is just using the copyright issue to get the judge to say that cheating is bad. As we posted the other day, Public Knowledge believes that any decision that says "yes, Glider breaks copyright law," could then be used as a precedent for calling any EULA violation a copyright violation.Adam Hyland, in the Terra Nova thread, has the breakdown of outcomes: either a judge rules completely in favor of MDY/Glider (thus leaving every software maker open to EULA violations -- very unlikely), or a judge rules either narrowly in favor of Blizzard (saying that yes, cheating is wrong, but it's not a copyright issue), or wholly in favor of Blizzard (which Public Knowledge fears the most -- if breaking the EULA is a copyright violation, everyone who names their character XXNoobz0rXX is breaking copyright law). We'll have to see what comes out of this case, and hope that it's for the best for both Blizzard and their players.
Microsoft and NBC working on copyright filters for Zune?
Microsoft's recently refurbished Zune store features a lot of NBC content like Heroes and The Office, but it looks like it may have come at what could be a steep price: NBC recently told the New York Times that it's working with Microsoft to develop "copyright filters" for the Zune that would "remove pirated movies and videos." (We'll pause for a moment so you can gape appropriately.) Granted, it's not clear whether NBC wants to actually delete non-DRM'd media or simply block playback, but apparently the network thinks it's an issue on par with variable pricing, and it's not in the iTunes Store because Apple refuses to cooperate. Microsoft, on the other hand, is apparently cheerfully working on such a solution, dubbed the "copyright cop," and says that it's sympathetic to NBC's concerns because it also suffers from piracy issues. Sigh. Of course, none of this is new territory for NBC or Microsoft: the two companies are working in similar content filtering systems to be implemented at the ISP level with AT&T, and NBC and SanDisk are working on a filter for Sansa players as well. Still, if Microsoft is serious about competing with the iPod, signing up for consumer-hostile DRM systems that actually block playback and potentially delete files just isn't the way to do it -- let's hope this one dies on the vine.Update: Although a spokesperson told the NYT that Microsoft was working with NBC on anti-piracy efforts, the company is now saying that it has no plans to implement a "copyright cop" in the Zune, and the Zune Insider blog confirms. Great, now just cancel the ISP-level filtering system and we'll be all set.
Law of the Game on Joystiq: Copyright? Copywrong
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq, a column on legal issues as they relate to video games: A few weeks ago, a copyright issue was posed to me for discussion via e-mail, highlighting some key misunderstandings of copyright and its purpose as it applies to video games. The e-mail pointed out that a copyright for a game doesn't really protect the game, and to that end, the writer of the e-mail didn't completely see the point to copyrighting game software. In fact, he pointed out that casino games are often patented. This observation leaves me with four issues to discuss: (1) what is protected when you copyright a game; (2) what isn't protected when you copyright a game; (3) why game patents are rarely used in a video game context; and (4) why patents aren't necessarily a good idea for the industry or gamers. Even the basic ground rules that govern copyright and intellectual property concepts can be confusing. The lines that various legal protections have drawn are not necessarily the most logical, especially with respect to newer technology.
Interest group speaks up against Blizzard on Glider case
Blizzard's lawsuit against the Glider folks (who were trying to sell a bot that was used to play the game while /afk), has a new wrinkle in it. According to PC Gamer, an interest group called Public Knowledge (they're funded by a variety of creative arts foundations) has filed a brief in the case accusing Blizzard of overstepping their rights under copyright law. In the brief, and an accompanying blog post, they say that while what Glider is doing in-game may be wrong, it isn't actually copyright infringement, because the Glider software doesn't actually infringe on any copyrights that Blizzard holds. And they're worried that if Blizzard wins this case, it could set a precedent strongly in favor of copyright holders, to the point where any misuse of the software at all, from using bots to using the wrong name, would be interpreted instead as copyright infringement.They kind of have a point here -- Blizzard just used all the tools they had in this case to try and send a clear message to anyone out there trying to sell automation software that what they were doing would get them in trouble, and they may have thrown copyright infringement on the menu when it didn't really belong. For Blizzard's part, they claim that making a copy in RAM of the game's information constitutes copyright infringement, but again, that's only because Glider is misusing those RAM files -- every user everywhere needs to copy parts of the game into RAM in order to run it.At any rate, Public Knowledge has filed their brief and had their voices heard. It's up to the judges in this case to decide what comes out of it.
Law of the Game on Joystiq: Of Pirates and Prostitutes
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq, a column on legal issues as they relate to video games: From cheating to piracy, game security has become a major issue. In fact, the most recent Computer Law & Security Report features a piece by Steven Davis, author of PlayNoEvil, and W. Joseph Price about the state of security in the gaming industry. Their verdict was less than reassuring if you're a player or developer. Sure enough, just a few weeks after the report was issued, Grand Theft Auto IV was leaked prior to release. So what is a developer to do? What about the video game community? To start, a "pirate" is someone who illegally reproduces or distributes something that is protected by an intellectual property right. In simple legal terms, that person is infringing on the rights of the copyright, patent, or trademark owner. While any intellectual property can theoretically be "pirated," I'm only talking about items that can be copyrighted. And before anyone points this out, yes, this is what groups such as the RIAA have taken pretty extreme steps to combat. Of course, the music industry and game industry are two different beasts.
The suspicion of [Name Removed]
Van Hemlock would like to talk about a certain virtual world, but, alas, he cannot. It's not because he doesn't want to -- he does. Or because he thinks any less of ... this place, because he doesn't. It's just because he's careful. A certain entity has laid claim to some letters placed next to other letters, and he's just respecting their rights. Van Hemlock isn't angry. He's just confused. Other games and virtual worlds have trademarks and yet manage not to anger their fan communities .... Right or wrong? We don't know, but Van Hemlock's hilarious take on the matter had us smirking and turning certain trademarked properties into pieces of public art for fun.
Law of the Game on Joystiq: RIP Consumer Rights
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq, a column on legal issues as they relate to video games: Last week, Sean Bersell of the EMA directed me to a lawsuit out of California that had him concerned. Once I had a chance to read over the suit, I didn't just share Sean's concern, I was actually cringing at the potential of this suit to bring about the death of consumer rights as we know them. If you have ever bought a DVD, CD, or video game, then this suit could affect you. I sincerely hope that the courts will, in their wisdom, not side with Universal Music Group's expansive view of the copyright law. But, I'm getting ahead of myself. The suit in question is UMG Recordings Inc. v. Augusto. (The EFF has many of the court documents available at that link, if you would like to read the filings.)To summarize the lawsuit, UMG puts out early release promo CDs, which go to radio stations and reviewers. Augusto runs an eBay business selling music, and one of his big focuses is re-selling these 'rare' promo CDs. UMG claims that re-selling these CDs is a violation of its copyright, and Augusto obviously doesn't agree. The case turns on interpretation of what is commonly known as the 'first sale doctrine,' even though it isn't as tied to a sale as the name would suggest. To put the gravity of this into perspective: UMG's claim, essentially, is that a copyright owner can control what the consumer can do with a product once it is in the marketplace. In other words, the copyright owner can prevent you from reselling a game you bought, or even throwing it away. That level of control, besides being wholly impractical, should sound as crazy to you as it does to me.
Peering Inside: Linden Lab, the DMCA, and content
Linden Lab reports that it is putting more 'resources' on to DMCA duty to deal with improper duplication of content in Second Life. This would be a significant improvement over reports of one person, not even performing the DMCA processing full-time. We don't think the new people will be full-time either, but more person-hours either way. Well, that's all assuming that 'resources' means people. Maybe it means the rumored part-time DMCA processor is now full-time.
TiVo's win over DISH Network upheld by court of appeals: It's over
Bad day for DISH Network, first its satellite is gone for good and now comes word its appeal to overturn TiVo's lawsuit has been denied. That should put an end to the legal push and pull between the companies, with TiVo firmly on top, DISH customers could have their DVRs pulled out from under them. Win in hand, TiVo has a lot more leverage against other providers to put its service on their boxes, (which might not be the worst thing if you've used some cable DVRs) and leaves the company looking a lot more lively.[Thanks Zatz Not Funny & Thomas Hawk]
Law of the Game on Joystiq: End User License Aggravation
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq, a column on legal issues as they relate to video games:Last week, ECA boss Hal Halpin posted a column discussing the need for the game industry to re-evaluate the big block of text you click to 'Agree' to without reading; aka the End User License Agreement (EULA). While I could write a column about the pitfalls of some actual EULAs, as PC Mag did in January, I will instead address the broader issue that no one has yet pointed out. In general, copyright law and its application to new media has lagged well behind the curve of practicality. I want to start out by saying that I fully believe the idea of copyright is a positive one, as those who create works should be able to protect their rights with respect to those works. However, technology has now pushed the envelope to the point that it is generally impractical, if not nearly impossible to impose the centuries old concept of 'copyright' that originated with the printing press. Now, that's not to say the powers that be haven't tried to adapt copyright to new media. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) was the last train wreck of an attempt to do just that. The problem with a lot of legislation is that the law is primarily drafted by legislators who, to be quite honest, know next to nothing about what they're trying to legislate, while being prodded by highly paid lobbyists who, generally, represent the side with the most money. Just to be clear, I'm pro-business, but the typical effect of one-sided drafting is that the other side is left in an unpleasant position. Given that I'm also a consumer, I see the need for balance on both sides of this issue, and unfortunately, there isn't much balance at this point in the equation. The addition of the EULA only continues to tip the scales away from the consumer. In general, this isn't a problem for most users, but it certainly has the potential to be one!
New Nebraska Network jacks N64 logo for their own use
Oh, New Nebraska Network. Did nobody inform you about copyright infringement? Of course not. Otherwise, you wouldn't have co-opted the N64 logo into your own. Naughty naughty!And what is the NNN about? Well, they've been around since March of 2005 and "has been the state's premiere source of progressive online political commentary and community-building." Being gamers, we're a bit wary of political stuff, because politicians often take up the cause that video games are a bad influence. Looks like they may have their first proof of that.[Thanks, Michael!]
Blue Mars developer too good at replicating reality
See if you can follow our reasoning on this one. Avatar Reality, the creators of the Blue Mars project, which is aimed at delivering a next-gen graphical Second Life-like MMO, are outsourcing the actual content of the game, while they work on the engine. Given the screenshots, and what we've been told by the studio, there will likely be many replicas of real-life objects -- golf equipment, for example, for the golf game that's said to be in development. However, one of Blue Mars' third-party developers, Virtual Space Entertainment, sports a company logo that's eerily similar to that of mountain bike-makers Specialized. Is VSE so into their role as replicators of real things that the mandate has seeped into every aspect of the company? Someone's in trouble here, and it's not Specialized.[Thanks, Peter!]
