Unofficial Fan created 'King's Quest' Sequel given approval by Vivendi
- Thread starter st3lt3k
- Start date
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
That's a good question - I certainly haven't heard of any such cases, but there's so much fan stuff out there that I probably wouldn't have heard of such a case even had it happened.Zelvik said:
I very much doubt it, though, for two simple reasons - firstly, fans generally don't know copyright laws well enough to be certain that they're within their rights. For this reason, you'd have a very hard time finding fans willing to risk an encounter in court - especially since hiring a lawyer costs money. And secondly, the companies that own the copyrights also don't want any lawsuits, so they prefer to settle this stuff out of court. For them, a lawsuit is bound to be damaging, with no possible benefit - sure, they'll stop a fan project, but they'll hurt their image in the process. That's why they pick their "cease and desist" letter recipients so carefully. It's a mutually beneficial arrangement where most fans are safe to do whatever they like (even those freakishly disturbing slash fanfics), as long as they don't try to attract too much public attention. These King's Quest IX guys clearly broke that arrangement, and were promptly told to shut down.
Well, it's quite possible that Roberta Williams was indeed greatly impressed by the game... yet it doesn't change the fact that the people developing it are just out to make a name for themselves.Ijuin said:
Besides, it'd undoubtedly be a different story if the Williamses still held the rights
. It's really, really easy to endorse something that has no impact on you whatsoever.
Maj.Striker
Swabbie
Banned
Quarto said:Well, it's quite possible that Roberta Williams was indeed greatly impressed by the game... yet it doesn't change the fact that the people developing it are just out to make a name for themselves.
Besides, it'd undoubtedly be a different story if the Williamses still held the rights
Yeah, it doesn't really matter what they think of it (in a legal sense) since they have no copyright holdings in the matter. Once you sell the copyrights to IP its not yours anymore. Don't believe me? Talk to Paul McCartney...he's had a heckuva time trying to buy back the copyrights to many of the original Beatles songs...a lot of them are ones he wrote! If you don't own the copyright, you got no legal standing on how its used.
AD
Finder of things, Doer of stuff
There was a PCGamer article a while back that mentioned a number of companies that were slapping cease and desist orders on mods (usualy it had to do with using certain characters and such in a competitors game engine). THe article also mentioned star wars and how lucas arts had taken a different aproach by "embracing" the mod community and allowing it theoretically so that they don't alienate their fan base.
Arguments for supporting legal action included the fact that potentially you could be A) helping sell the product of a competitor by using a popular name and designs in the mod. and B) that you might be (just using WC as an example) making a FPS set in WC universe and that this somehow could cut into the profits and popularity of an official WC FPS from EA.
Arguments for supporting legal action included the fact that potentially you could be A) helping sell the product of a competitor by using a popular name and designs in the mod. and B) that you might be (just using WC as an example) making a FPS set in WC universe and that this somehow could cut into the profits and popularity of an official WC FPS from EA.
Dahan
Rear Admiral
I have not read all the messages/threads but the way I am seeing it, some of the companies should be a little considerate when there is a large following/fan base who enjoy their games and like to see their games to continue/live on. To have some company to tell a group to cease their work all because of promoting teh good works of what the company did and allowing the game to live on is a tad bit selfish......
ChrisReid
Super Soaker Collector / Administrator
Dahan said:
None of that is grounded in anything. Virtually all companies are much more than "a little considerate" in allowing their fan bases to modify their games. On top of that, creating your own game in the name of someone else's series is a lot bigger than simply being a fan and promoting the franchise. No company is being selfish here, because no company is doing what you're describing.
st3lt3k
Rear Admiral
There's also a fan made remake of King's Quest 1 in VGA by a different group, AGDI Interactive.
The October 2001, State of Adventure Gaming at Just Adventure theorized that the remake of King's Quest 1 may have helped the sales of King's Quest VIII
The October 2001, State of Adventure Gaming at Just Adventure theorized that the remake of King's Quest 1 may have helped the sales of King's Quest VIII
http://www.justadventure.com/articles/State_of_Adventure_Gaming/Oct-01/October_01.shtm
st3lt3k
Rear Admiral
Not necessarily.Quarto said:
According to a Wired News story, AGDI "established a licensing agreement with Vivendi Universal Games, the owner of Sierra On-Line's old titles." Wired News, Maniacs Make a Modern Mansion
Apparently the terms of this possible agreement have not been made public but a poster on the Adventure Forums believes that,
Adventure Forum thread #16 (posts 15 and 19 are also on the possible agreement). This legal statement on AGDI's site is interesting http://www.agdinteractive.com/legal.php.
An independent developer named LucasFan games tried to develop an Indiana Jones, Raiders of the Lost Ark Game. LucasArts apparently sent a cease and desist letter (this article also mentions Vivendi sending a cease and desist letter regarding a Space Quest 3 remake as well) http://www.adventure-eu.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=124&Itemid=51. Here is a link to the LucasFan games website.
st3lt3k
Rear Admiral
This isn't related to "The Silver Lining" but is related to fan projects.
A free real-time strategy engine called "FreeCraft" apparently shut down in 2003 after getting a cease and desist order from Blizzard, the makers of WarCraft. Interesting discussion is here at the weblog for Princeton University's 2005 class COS 491: Information Technology and the Law with links (including Slashdot coverage).
A free real-time strategy engine called "FreeCraft" apparently shut down in 2003 after getting a cease and desist order from Blizzard, the makers of WarCraft. Interesting discussion is here at the weblog for Princeton University's 2005 class COS 491: Information Technology and the Law with links (including Slashdot coverage).
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
Ugh, Blizzard.
I'm sure they're well within their rights to shut down a StarCraft copy -- but this is the company that makes its millions by convincing a massive cloud of internet idiots that they're the edgy, cool and friendly mega-corporation and that all their similarly endowed competitors are evil, money grubbing hacks who'll screw you over to take your dime.
I'm sure they're well within their rights to shut down a StarCraft copy -- but this is the company that makes its millions by convincing a massive cloud of internet idiots that they're the edgy, cool and friendly mega-corporation and that all their similarly endowed competitors are evil, money grubbing hacks who'll screw you over to take your dime.
Hmm, I find it kind of funny that sierra would sue anyone since games like SpaceQuest (just for example) where basiclly full of copyright infringements. And I think they themselves were sued ha.
Take the pink bunny with the battery in it's back (space quest 4) or the very startrek theme of space quest 5 or for that matter the ET style alien in space quest 6 who was "a survivor of the telecommunications wars" or for that matter the startrek style food dispenser called a "compost" from if I remember right soylent corp(could be soilit now that I think about it). Which would be a reference to an old movie called soylent green.
I think the point people don't seem to get about copyrights is this:
It only matters when the bottom line is in danger, game companies just publish a game, make some money and then move on. If they make alot of money they MIGHT make a sequal and then when sales drop off move on.
They don't really care what happens to titles like wingcommander because they most likely never plan to do anything else with it and aren't making any money from it. Of course they might make some money if they still sold the games but unless sales are high they just don't care, a few dollars here and there means nothing to a big game company.
I really guess I'm on a rant now but still with the internet and broadband all they'd have to do is put up a server sell you a download for a few bucks with very little cost unless there are alot of downloads, in which case they'd make enough money to cover it anyway. Some smaller compaines have done this, EpicMega games still sells some old titles and Appogee (I believe) still sells it's old stuff along with some others I can't remember right now.
I think sierra IS selling collections of it's quest titles on-line somewhere but don't remember the link.
[EDIT] LMAO you can't post under-dogs as one word? Oy hello censorship [/EDIT]
Take the pink bunny with the battery in it's back (space quest 4) or the very startrek theme of space quest 5 or for that matter the ET style alien in space quest 6 who was "a survivor of the telecommunications wars" or for that matter the startrek style food dispenser called a "compost" from if I remember right soylent corp(could be soilit now that I think about it). Which would be a reference to an old movie called soylent green.
I think the point people don't seem to get about copyrights is this:
It only matters when the bottom line is in danger, game companies just publish a game, make some money and then move on. If they make alot of money they MIGHT make a sequal and then when sales drop off move on.
They don't really care what happens to titles like wingcommander because they most likely never plan to do anything else with it and aren't making any money from it. Of course they might make some money if they still sold the games but unless sales are high they just don't care, a few dollars here and there means nothing to a big game company.
I really guess I'm on a rant now but still with the internet and broadband all they'd have to do is put up a server sell you a download for a few bucks with very little cost unless there are alot of downloads, in which case they'd make enough money to cover it anyway. Some smaller compaines have done this, EpicMega games still sells some old titles and Appogee (I believe) still sells it's old stuff along with some others I can't remember right now.
I think sierra IS selling collections of it's quest titles on-line somewhere but don't remember the link.
[EDIT] LMAO you can't post under-dogs as one word? Oy hello censorship [/EDIT]
KrisV
Administrator
Read the rules before you post again. http://www.crius.net/zone/faq.php?&faq=cicfaq#faq_cic_rules
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
We don't specifically *need* someone to fill in as dumbest person here just because Fatcat is gone.
Yeah I should have read the rules before I ever posted, sorry about that.
Didn't know abandonware was frowned on, I was only referring to that site as it has links to stores that still sell legal copies of older games and also fan projects but it's still not allowed. Again sorry.
Didn't know abandonware was frowned on, I was only referring to that site as it has links to stores that still sell legal copies of older games and also fan projects but it's still not allowed. Again sorry.
Delance
Victory, you say?
Quarto said:
And how is that a bad thing? They are making a free game, and all they want is a little publicity. That's better than, say, making a game for money and fame? Or should the makers of free games, simply not accept any recognition at all?
Besides, it'd undoubtedly be a different story if the Williamses still held the rights
It still would have a moral impact on your image if you endorse a bad product for free! It's not like you sold out, you just have bad taste.
Maj.Striker said:
That is correct on “Anglo-Saxon” copyright law (English speaking world, some other countries). On the continental European legal system, the author and his family, even after they sold the copyright, retain "moral rights". For example, if you change the ending of a novel, alter it in a fundamental way, or change the author of a product, or anything that would offend this "moral rights", you could potentially be sued. This is not used very often, because the rights that give you money, the copyright itself, are what counts. Besides, the business model follow the american system, the US being, largest consumer and producer of this kind of product. I wonder, however, if you could legally name yourself (or someone else) the author of a work you brought the copyrights on the US system. It would probably be wrong somehow, even if it doesn't recognize "moral rights".
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
There's free games, and then there's free fan games. With the former - naturally, it's normal to want a little (or a lot!) of publicity, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But when you're making a fan game... well, if you're doing it to make a name for yourself, then you're doing it for all the wrong reasons. It's all right to get publicity from a fan project - but it's simply morally wrong to pretend that you're a fan and exploit an intellectual property for the sake of publicity. If publicity is all they want, then they should do all the work, making a brand new property, instead of taking an existing one for a ride.Delance said:
Maj.Striker
Swabbie
Banned
Quarto said:
I agree somewhat with what you're saying but I think it can also work both ways. I think someone can create a fan game with the intent of gaining publicity by showcasing their abilities in their respective field while also using a franchise or subject matter that they, as a fan, have, in the past, enjoyed. After all, its much more likely that you will turn out a better project if you actually like the subject matter of the game. But I do agree, if I were to pretend that I like and understand Pokemon (for example) and then create a fan game to gain some publicity then I think that's morally wrong. However, if I, being a Wing Commander fan, created a wing commander game even with my main intent being to gain publicity out of it, I don't think that's necessarily wrong.