When a "port" or a "remake" of a games come to be ilegal or is legal? where is the law line?

Capturing the GFX? or Re-dreawing the GFX?

Using the same game-story? or maybe using the same TITLE?

Copying the song? what if it is a popular song?

If a port is done for other system, rewriting all the code, or reinventing all the code for do the same things... it is ilegal?


Where is the LAW line? what's say the LAW about this?

In the music industry this all would be called a 'grey area', as no-one really knows what to do or what to say..

depends on what your country's laws say about it

generally speaking, a direct copy of any portion of a game for use in another game would be copyright infringement. When redrawing graphics, what's acceptable and what's not is not very clear. If I draw a character that looks exactly like Mario, Nintendo would sue me. If I draw it with different colors, Nintendo would still sue me. There's no law that dictates that a graphic most differ at least for 60% from something else to be legal. Same goes for songs and stories.

Using the same title as another game is a no-no. Most game titles are trademarked anyways, so calling a game Gradius would result in some angry letters from Konami. Again, it's not clear what's acceptable and what's not when just a few letters are changed. There's game called Gladius, and I don't think Konami sued Lucas Arts. But we all know what happened to Lindows, Microsoft didn't really like that The genre of a game could play a role in it, Gradius is a shooter, while Gladius is a strategy game. If I make a platformer called Zario, I would probably get sued by Nintendo.

Anyone played Alundra on PSX? Its game play is very similar to Zelda, but it has its own characters, graphics etc so Sony could get away with it.

In the case of Lindows, in some countries judges decided they could use the name, in other countries judges decided they couldn't. So it is not very clear what is and what isn't allowed.

Part of the problem with the Windows name is that it also refers to 'a part of a program displayed on your computer screen' or whatever you'd call it. You can therefor argue that Lindows is Unix using Windows, as in the sense of the graphical part of the GUI. It's all a matter of how the judge wishes to see it. On the Mac these 'parts of the screen' were called windows far before the equally named OS reared its ugly head... So the essence of the case is how much is Lindows trying to (mis)use the brand-name and how far is it trying to indicate what the product is by using this name. Since M$ has a few bucks lying around I'm sure they'll eventually win this in all countries that matter to them.

But, back to the original topic. It's really simple, anything goes and ofcourse it's all illegal How clear is that huh? Basically, you can get away with a lot of things, just use your common sense when doing it. Naturally out-right copying is usually gonna get you in trouble. Ofcourse if you do it on the MSX system, no-one is really gonna give a rat's ass.

WINDOWS is a word of the english language, so, first MICROCHOT don't has the copyright of that word, almos until 1998 or something like that, because the US denny all attempts to licence the name before that date. Why after a lot of denies the US patents office aproved one?,, i think is a politic case.

Simply think, that a engish word can't be registered on USA because the BASIC RULES LAWS SAY THAT.

Quote:

WINDOWS is a word of the english language, so, first MICROCHOT don't has the copyright of that word, almos until 1998 or something like that, because the US denny all attempts to licence the name before that date. Why after a lot of denies the US patents office aproved one?,, i think is a politic case. Simply think, that a engish word can't be registered on USA because the BASIC RULES LAWS SAY THAT.

really? and why is "apple" patented then? the law in your country may not apply everywhere

The law is clear: if something is registered and you do not have an agreement/permission from the entitled owner, then you cannot use it.

But now comes the detail: in the roman law, that is the origin of all civil law in continental Europe, you do not "hurt" the interest of another person if you do not produce him an economically valuable effect. In spanish it is "lucro cesante" (that's it, the money that he won't earn because of your action) and "daño emergente" (the direct economical loss).

That's why I am able to publish freeware versions of classic games in a non-commercial system like MSX. Anyway, as I stated in GURU LOGIC for MSX page ( http://www.robsy.net/guru.htm ), I would put it off-line if the entitled owner asks me to do so. I tried to contact them but I got no answer, so I continued with it.

I do not use neither the original graphics nor any piece of code: all is fully reworked and redone. I just use the game concept and the name: it is not legal but I cannot get sued for that.

Everyone is free to make his own decissions.

Taking a storyline from a game or a book is plagiary and I think that no law in any country allow that.
Of course you can let you inspire by a existing story

Quote:

Quote: WINDOWS is a word of the english language, so, first MICROCHOT don't has the copyright of that word, almos until 1998 or something like that, because the US denny all attempts to licence the name before that date. Why after a lot of denies the US patents office aproved one?,, i think is a politic case. Simply think, that a engish word can't be registered on USA because the BASIC RULES LAWS SAY THAT. really? and why is "apple" patented then? the law in your country may not apply everywhere

Apple co. got the license of that worD? i not think so...

Mybe got the WORD+LOGO license

or a limited license only for use as computer mark things

i don't know

imho. windows and Apple are trademarks, that is something else than copyrights.
There are many companys using existing words for the name of that company.

There is a lot of grey area, but a few things can certainly not be done.

Characters for example, they are usually trademarked (and even if they're not they still fall under copyright laws), so you can not re-use them. Only Nintendo may publishing a game featuring Pikachu. Even if you don't call him exactly that, the character design copyrights are still violated. Warner Brothers can not use the Goofy character by Disney without first signing an agreement (and probably a payment). Not either if they call him 'Barry'. This basically goes for all art, even if you change it a little by reducing the amount of colours, re-arranging the location of some elements, etc...

A game title is ofcourse also trademarked. Changing the title alone with some minor tweaks (for example: Sonyc) definately does not offer sufficient protection against lawsuits. Nor do major tweaks necessarily, for that matter. In any case, take the Lindows example: Microsoft's lawyers claimed the name resembled Windows too much (for an OS), and filed lawsuits against them in various countries. It was and is a debatable issue, some cases were won, some were lost, but nevertheless they felt forced to change their name to Linspire after all.

A game concept also can't be copied ('ported') without the original creator's consent. You can not publish a book about Luke Skywalker and Han Solo in the Star Wars universe without George Lucas giving you his blessing. However, especially in this area there is a lot of 'grey'. Because, when is something a port of an existing game concept, and when is it an original one. If you want to create a Real Time Strategy game you do not need to get a license from the pioneers of the genre. So, if you are creating a port of some kind, it is always best to give it an original twist, by changing the gameplay or adding many new elements and not letting it resemble the original too much. Make it an 'inspired' game instead of a 'port'.

About the music - I think it falls all under the grey area Wolf mentioned, meaning nobody really knows (apparantly). Although, when used in software, I think it will get you in trouble. Imagine Rainbow Six using an arrangement of the Metal Gear Solid tune. Fat chance.

Of course all this is just about what the law says. If you create a port of a game on a very low profile, in an area where there is no interest for by the original creator, you could very well get away with it. Take the Battle Tetris game for example. Aside from that maybe it introduces some original elements (I think that's hard, with the huge amount of existing Tetris games), it is clear that it is using a game concept and title which is copyrighted by the Tetris Corporation. However, because it is such a small game for a small audience, and they do not have any interests in the MSX world (not yet, at least ;p), they will not act on it. Same goes for say, Sonyc by Manuel Pazos.

Hope that answers your questions.

Now some responses to pitpan:

Quote:

But now comes the detail: in the roman law, that is the origin of all civil law in continental Europe, you do not "hurt" the interest of another person if you do not produce him an economically valuable effect. In spanish it is "lucro cesante" (that's it, the money that he won't earn because of your action) and "daño emergente" (the direct economical loss).

This is nonsense. By publishing a free version of a product without license you deprive the original creator of income, because people will not buy the creator's product anymore, or at least less people will. They invested time and money in creating that product in the first place, and you recreating it for free does not justify anything. It is plain theft.

Anyways, you may think it is the 'origin of all civil law', but whether it is or not, doesn't make copying a game concept, game characters and other related issues more legal.

Quote:

Anyway, as I stated in GURU LOGIC for MSX page ( http://www.robsy.net/guru.htm ), I would put it off-line if the entitled owner asks me to do so. I tried to contact them but I got no answer, so I continued with it.

About the AIKY site, you claim it doesn't exist/work, this is simply not true. Its address is http://www.aiky.biz/.


~Grauw

Trust me, Grauw: under the spanish civil law I cannot be sued, because I haven't produced any monetary damage to Compile/Aiky. If they want to sue me using criminal law, it is even more difficult.

Let's consider it from a different perspective: I am freely advertising their game. If you like the raw version, then you can get the GBA version.

Everything should be very different if I were selling the game (as others did). But no, man: I am giving it away for free!

Thank you for Aiky link. The one that's found in my page was the first one that appeared in the MRC news. I will update it as soon as possible.

I wouldn't say that you as an 'amateur' don't get anything (which makes it legal). Not money, no, but ppl know you because of this game, that's what you get. If you're going to use this game for a portfolio, then again you gain something..

ahwell.. nitpicking

i guess its just time to test all this in courts around the world. let there be some jurisdiction about this. that'll clear up things i guess