regarding boardgame copyrights
December 30, 2014 11:34 PM
If I were to program a barebones game client for a commercially sold boardgame, say Settlers of Catan, for example, would I be violating some sort of copyright? This would be for my own amusement / practice, to be run locally only (I'm assuming releasing the source code would definitely be a no-no), I would essentially only be implementing the game rules and not using the official images in any way.
As I understand it, copyright only attaches upon distribution or reproduction.
posted by rhizome at 12:06 AM on December 31, 2014
posted by rhizome at 12:06 AM on December 31, 2014
I know of at least one open source game client for settlers. I also know of university courses where one of the programming assignments is to implement a variant on settlers, and legal doesn't seem to have any issues with it.
On the other hand, there used to be a very good game client on the web for Dominion that eventually got pulled down for copyright issues - but that was using a lot more than just the game rules, and I don't believe it went any further than removing the client.
So you're almost certainly fine.
posted by Ashlyth at 12:07 AM on December 31, 2014
On the other hand, there used to be a very good game client on the web for Dominion that eventually got pulled down for copyright issues - but that was using a lot more than just the game rules, and I don't believe it went any further than removing the client.
So you're almost certainly fine.
posted by Ashlyth at 12:07 AM on December 31, 2014
If this is a client as in a piece of software that interfaces to a remote server, the most recent decision in an Oracle versus Google lawsuit from earlier this year said
posted by XMLicious at 5:19 AM on December 31, 2014
I'm not a lawyer, though, so I don't have any idea whether this decision or possible future decisions, which appear to concern implementing an API within a programming language itself or something like that, are expected to have bearing on implementing a communication protocol sort of interface between a client and a server.[W]e conclude that the declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organization of the 37 Java API packages are entitled to copyright protection.
posted by XMLicious at 5:19 AM on December 31, 2014
While IANAL, I believe I can answer these pretty conclusively.
If you make the program for the use of only you and friends, if it's not publicly available, then there is no issue. Go to town.
If it is to be made publicly available then, if it doesn't use the original's art or text, you're in the clear. CrystalDave is right, in the US game rules are not copyrightable. This is why Words With Friends can persist despite its similarities to Scrabble. There are whole pocket industries of game developers who do nothing but make clones of popular games.
Ashlyth, in referring to Dominion, was talking about Isotropic, but that's not a good example because it wasn't pulled down, it was taken down voluntarily. The creators always said they would remove it when Rio Grande got around to finally releasing an online version of the game. They finally licensed it to Goko and made a (IMO) overpriced and underfeatured version of the game, but true to their word Isotropic shut down. There was never a legal dispute there.
That was a particularly sad situation because Isotropic was more than just a place to play Dominion, the community around the game flourished there, it logged all the games, and people ran statistical analyses on which cards were most popular/contributed the most towards winning, which are now unavailable to people, as with so many other things, unless they can spare enough money to join in -- but no matter. The analysis site for the game logs, Council Room, is still up.
Dominion is in a weird place because while game rules are not copyrightable, card text definitely is, and Dominion is one of those games where the exact letter of the text is essential, many cards are carefully worded to close loopholes involving power cards that affect the play of other cards, like Throne Room and King's Throne.
Settlers of Catan, however? If it's just for you guys' play, you're in the clear. If you distribute it, make sure not to use any of the game's copyrightable assets. If you sell it, be extra sure, and get a lawyer. Again, IANAL, but most of what I've read over the years agrees with this summation.
posted by JHarris at 5:27 AM on December 31, 2014
If you make the program for the use of only you and friends, if it's not publicly available, then there is no issue. Go to town.
If it is to be made publicly available then, if it doesn't use the original's art or text, you're in the clear. CrystalDave is right, in the US game rules are not copyrightable. This is why Words With Friends can persist despite its similarities to Scrabble. There are whole pocket industries of game developers who do nothing but make clones of popular games.
Ashlyth, in referring to Dominion, was talking about Isotropic, but that's not a good example because it wasn't pulled down, it was taken down voluntarily. The creators always said they would remove it when Rio Grande got around to finally releasing an online version of the game. They finally licensed it to Goko and made a (IMO) overpriced and underfeatured version of the game, but true to their word Isotropic shut down. There was never a legal dispute there.
That was a particularly sad situation because Isotropic was more than just a place to play Dominion, the community around the game flourished there, it logged all the games, and people ran statistical analyses on which cards were most popular/contributed the most towards winning, which are now unavailable to people, as with so many other things, unless they can spare enough money to join in -- but no matter. The analysis site for the game logs, Council Room, is still up.
Dominion is in a weird place because while game rules are not copyrightable, card text definitely is, and Dominion is one of those games where the exact letter of the text is essential, many cards are carefully worded to close loopholes involving power cards that affect the play of other cards, like Throne Room and King's Throne.
Settlers of Catan, however? If it's just for you guys' play, you're in the clear. If you distribute it, make sure not to use any of the game's copyrightable assets. If you sell it, be extra sure, and get a lawyer. Again, IANAL, but most of what I've read over the years agrees with this summation.
posted by JHarris at 5:27 AM on December 31, 2014
I believe that this can be considered fair use (in the USA).
Fair Use checklist introduction (scroll down for PDF link to the actual checklist)
More info and a history of the checklist
posted by rakaidan at 5:40 AM on December 31, 2014
Fair Use checklist introduction (scroll down for PDF link to the actual checklist)
More info and a history of the checklist
posted by rakaidan at 5:40 AM on December 31, 2014
As everyone's said, game design is understood to not be copyrightable, at least in the US. Clone away! And I think you're in the clear to let the public play it and release source code as long as you don't infringe on copyrighted assets of the original. That being said anyone can sue anyone, and even if the suit has no merit it could be a pain in the ass. Personally I'd draw the line at staying noncommercial. Note: I'm not qualified to give legal advice.
Some supporting discussion for you on Stack Exchange: How closely can a game resemble another game without legal problems? and Is it legally possible to make a clone of the game?.
For completeness, there have been cases of game design being given intellectual property protection. Monopoly is an interesting example; the game design was patented and that patent successfully enforced in the long long ago. I'm not aware of any modern games being patented in this way. Also there's a precedent against game cloning in the case of K. C. Munchkin which was found to be enough like Pac-Man to infringe copyright, despite all the details of the game being quite different. For some reason this case didn't really stop later game cloning, I don't understand why.
posted by Nelson at 7:05 AM on December 31, 2014
Some supporting discussion for you on Stack Exchange: How closely can a game resemble another game without legal problems? and Is it legally possible to make a clone of the game?.
For completeness, there have been cases of game design being given intellectual property protection. Monopoly is an interesting example; the game design was patented and that patent successfully enforced in the long long ago. I'm not aware of any modern games being patented in this way. Also there's a precedent against game cloning in the case of K. C. Munchkin which was found to be enough like Pac-Man to infringe copyright, despite all the details of the game being quite different. For some reason this case didn't really stop later game cloning, I don't understand why.
posted by Nelson at 7:05 AM on December 31, 2014
Patents on game play are pretty rare but Wizards of the Coast also got a patent on some aspect of game play, including tapping.
posted by metahawk at 9:05 AM on December 31, 2014
posted by metahawk at 9:05 AM on December 31, 2014
XMLicious: [W]e conclude that the declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organization of the 37 Java API packages are entitled to copyright protection.I can't imagine any reasonable interpretation of that ruling that would extend to black-box reconstructions (where the specific code structure is not replicated). In fact, court decisions in the past have specifically ruled that when programmers recreate functionality from scratch, that code does not violate code copyrights. This ruling you've quoted specifically deals with copied code structures, not program functionality.
I'm not a lawyer, though, so I don't have any idea whether this decision or possible future decisions, which appear to concern implementing an API within a programming language itself or something like that, are expected to have bearing on implementing a communication protocol sort of interface between a client and a server.
By example, if I steal FB's copyrighted code to build an app that associates parts required to assemble a jet airliner, I've probably violated copyright law. If, on the other hand, I create a social website that allows users to associate with each other, and post on their webpages (to the right of an icon or portrait picture I choose for myself), starting from scratch in C (because I hate myself that much), Jeff Zuckerman has nothing on me.
I did say "reasonable interpretation"; we're talking about a country where a significant number of elected officials (like judges) believe that the second homo sapiens was made from a rib bone, 6 days after the Big Bang.
posted by IAmBroom at 4:44 PM on December 31, 2014
Today the Supreme Court asked the DOJ for comment on the Oracle v. Google lawsuit I mentioned above. The article I came across quotes an EFF amicus brief (PDF) saying,
posted by XMLicious at 12:38 PM on January 12, 2015
(emphasis mine) This would seem to say that, if this most recent position remains as precedent, even a black-box reconstruction will violate copyright if it's using the same method signatures or other "structure, sequence, and organization".The Federal Circuit’s decision poses a significant threat to the technology sector and to the public. If it is allowed to stand, Oracle and others will have an unprecedented and dangerous power over the future of innovation. API creators would have veto rights over any developer who wants to create a compatible program—regardless of whether she copies any literal code from the original API implementation. That, in turn, would upset the settled business practices that have enabled the American computer industry to flourish, and choke off many of the system’s benefits to consumers.
posted by XMLicious at 12:38 PM on January 12, 2015
XMLicious: This would seem to say that, if this most recent position remains as precedent, even a black-box reconstruction will violate copyrightFucking hell.
posted by IAmBroom at 1:05 PM on January 12, 2015
I should be more specific in that, according to my limited layman's understanding, it wouldn't actually be performing the black-box reconstruction itself that would violate copyright but rather as rhizome suggested above the violation would be in publishing or distributing the code or software resulting from that reconstruction.
posted by XMLicious at 1:42 PM on January 12, 2015
posted by XMLicious at 1:42 PM on January 12, 2015
...aaaaand the DoJ agrees with Oracle and the appeals court that APIs are copyrightable.
posted by XMLicious at 8:18 AM on May 27, 2015
posted by XMLicious at 8:18 AM on May 27, 2015
This thread is closed to new comments.
That said, specific expressions (artwork, terms, etc) may be. This is why clones such as AsoBrain are able to persist online for playing Catan. So you're likely even fine releasing the source code.
BoardGameGeek has a rather nice-looking guide on legalities in game design.
That said, I'm no lawyer (copyright or otherwise), so I'll defer to expert opinion as it arises.
posted by CrystalDave at 11:52 PM on December 30, 2014