RISK on Google Maps Shut Down

mrokkam writes "Hasbro owns the copyrights for the game of Risk, as the guy who wrote the google maps based Risk found out. This was featured on slashdot earlier. However, he does not seem too discouraged and asks people to submit ideas for other games using google maps that will not have such legal wrangles." One thing this reminded me of is how cool Risk is. My office is now in its 3rd round... Africa will be mine!

First Question!

[MindStalker (22827)]

Where can I get a job in your office!

Re:First Question!

[SilentChris (452960)]

I actually briefly interned for the law firm that Hasbro uses. One guy had his office filled with toys (Mr. Potato Head and the like). In one corner was a framed check (lawyers often keep fake ones for memorabilia) of a $100,000 victory over some company.

Anyway, this was back in the day when the internet was still taking off. I was working on this guy's computer and, seeing I knew about them, he asked me "Are there any games online that are similar to what Hasbro makes?" Without thinking, I mentioned Download.com and all its shareware.

A couple of days later, I see him walking by with a huge stack of printouts -- screenshots of webpages. They were every little piece of shareware he could find that bared the faintest resemblance to a Hasbro title. He mentioned, "That was a great site you told me about." and walked off. A couple of months later I saw a number of those games disappear forever.

To this day, I'm kicking myself over telling him about it. Moral of the story: unless they're defending you, don't ever talk to a lawyer, even in passing.

Re:Another game

[tomhudson (43916)]

You can't copyright a game. Neither the name, nor the rules. Only the unique graphics and pieces.

Here's what the US Copyright office has to say about it - and they should know http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html [copyright.gov]

he idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.

Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.

Some material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game, or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container, may be registrable.

So make your Risk game, your Camen Sandiego game, yur Sim City game - you can even use the same name. All these attempted smack-downs by lawyers who should know better make me sick. No wonder Shakespeare said "first we kill all the lawyers."

Re:Another game

[tomhudson (43916)]

http://www.gcglaw.com/resources/tech/windows.html [gcglaw.com]

The Ninth Circuit's dismissal of the appeal means that Microsoft will not be able to argue at trial that consumers today recognize "Windows" to be a valid brand of operating system proprietary to Microsoft.

The litigation over the Windows trademark highlights a distinction between valid trademarks that become generic over time -- "escalator" for moving stairs is a frequently-cited example -- and words or phrases that were generic from the moment of their adoption by the purported trademark owner -- for example, "raisin bran" for breakfast cereal made from raisins and bran.

Risk was in the english a LONG time before Hasbro stuck it on a game. Anyone may use it in conjuction with a game, same as anyone may make a raisin bran cereal. and call it raisin bram. Kelloggs Raisin Bran vs Post Raisin Bran. Hasbro Risk vs Your Risk.

Trademarks are subject to dilution. Hasbro isn't in connection with a game company. That's their business name. Risk is - its not their name, its the name of a product, and as such, enjoys a LOT less protection. The Reg had an interesting article on how trademarks get diluted. In this case, Risk isn't even a trademarkable word - its a generic english term. Same with Windows. Remember how Microsoft backed down and paid Lindows $20 million to go away when the issue looked like it was going to go before a judge?

http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2002-all/isenberg- 2002-04-all.html [gigalaw.com]

The current dispute, which Microsoft brought against Lindows.com, already has backfired against the software giant. In March, a federal district judge in Seattle denied Microsoft's request for a preliminary injunction preventing Lindows.com from using its trademark, which Microsoft said violated its own rights to the Windows trademark. In doing so, the judge said the case raised "serious questions" about the validity of the Windows trademark.

Here's why: An elementary principle of trademark law says that generic terms cannot be protected. So, for example, no company could obtain trademark rights to the word "computer" to describe what we all know as a computer. As the judge in the ongoing Lindows case explained: "when a trademark's primary significance is to describe the type of product rather than the producer or source, the mark is a generic term." Generic terms can be used by anyone.

Here's another way of looking at it: If you can't think of any other term to describe a product, that term probably is generic. So, ask yourself this question: What term could the maker of a windows-based user interface (such as Lindows.com) use, other than "windows," to describe its product? If you can't think of one, then windows just might be generic.

As a result, if "Windows" is generic for graphical user interfaces, then Microsoft cannot prevent anyone else from using that mark -- or a similar mark, such as "Lindows."

Hasbro better not roll the dice on this one - the defenders dies are all 6s to their snake-eyes

Copyrights

[qbwiz (87077)]

I'm curious what Hasbro actually owns the copyrights on. They own the trademark on the name of the game, as the article says, and they own the copyright on the original game's rules, but do they own a copyright on any rephrasings of those rules?

If the game looks similar and plays the same, but does not have its rules phrased the same as the original game, is this a violation of copyright? I'm genuinely curious.

Re:Copyrights

[SirSlud (67381)]

What is important is that copyrights and trademarks be respected, otherwise there is no incentive to create boardgames that furthur human knowledge, culture, and society.

Imagine if we didn't have copyright law. Imagine a world without poker, bridge, snakes and ladders, blackjack, [insert one million fucking games better than risk, even tho risk does rule, here.]

I agree with copyright laws with limited term. I agree, even, with moderate trademark laws. I do not agree with anybody who suggests that the value of these laws to society at large increases with the magnitude of the legal strength they grant the owner.

Re:Copyrights

[bonkedproducer (715249)]

Speaking of copyright and whatnot - your sig should actually credit the late great Mitch Hedberg.

Great idea!

[StringBlade (557322)]

We'll call it "Imperil" and it'll take place on Pangea with toops of dinosaurs and other pre-historic species of animals trying to take over the world before it breaks apart.

Re:Copyrights

[codegen (103601)]

If the game looks similar and plays the same, but does not have its rules phrased the same as the original game, is this a violation of copyright? I'm genuinely curious

Two words:
derivative work.

Changing the name and changing the rules might be enough.I haven't seen the online version. But if you change the way results are calculated (instead of rolls of 6 sided dice) and change the resupply algorithm, it might be sufficient

Re:Copyrights

[Yartrebo (690383)]

IANAL, but ...

The copyright claim is probably a stretch. The title cannot be copyrighted, and merely formulating rules that are similar is not copyright infringement, though it is close enough for a lawsuit to stand on.

However, in these types of instances, trademarks cast a very wide net because of the anti-dilution clauses that were added to trademark law a few decades back. Judges often interpret the clause extremely broadly. The anti-consumer aspects of trademarks get their teeth from this, whereas the aspects of trademarks needed for a well functionin market, namely that one entity cannot pass off goods are being made by another, was very well handled by the older trademark laws.

Re:Copyrights

[EvilFrog (559066)]

Here's the trick:

You can not copyright the rules to a game.

You can copyright the expression of the game— the artwork and the way the manual is written.

You can trademark the name of the game.

And most importantly you can patent a unique mechanic of a game.

I'm 99.9% certain the Hasbro does not own a patent on any of the mechanics used in Risk. They do however own the copyright on the board artwork and the wording of the rules, as well as a trademark on the name "Risk".

All you need to do in order to be legit in this case is to stop calling it "Risk".

Re:Copyrights

[tomhudson (43916)]

Ther is nothing in Title 17 that allows for copyrighting game rules.

You can't copyright the the actual rules of a game, only the documents you use to express those rules. IOW, you can copyright the form in which you've written them up, but that's it. Anyone is free to implement the same rules, using different text.

You can TRADEMARK a board design and the actual game pieces you make, but that's it. Again, anyone else is free to implement their version, using a different design and game pieces. I seriously doubt that Hasbro's version of Risk has an actual map of the world underneath (I have both the board and computer versions, and the world they show is NOT the real world,or even a decent representation of it).

In other words, Hasbro needs to to realize that the internet gives everyone the power to search here [cornell.edu] and get the facts.

If you'd rather read a summary about game law, direct from the government, go here [copyright.gov] instead.

The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.

Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.

Some material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game, or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container, may be registrable.

In order to register the copyrightable portions of a game, you must send the Library of Congress, Copyright Office, 101 Independence Avenue S.E., Washington, D.C. 20559-6000, the following elements in the same envelope or package:

So Hasbro can go fuck themselves. The guy should sue, as this was an obvious attempt at intimidation. They do NOT own the exclusive rights to RISK-style board games.

So don't use the name RISK?

[mridley (571519)]

I never saw the original game web site, so I'm not sure exactly what it looked like. But as long as you don't use the name RISK and you don't copy, word for word, their rules out of the physical cardboard box that the game comes in (ie. don't infringe their copyright), then I don't see why you couldn't put this back online.

After all, what was that game - Tradewars? - that was exactly like RISK but I don't think anyone ever made an issue out of it.

-m

Re:So don't use the name RISK?

[yeremein (678037)]

The Hasbro bark letter [ashotoforangejuice.com] seems to complain that "unauthorized use of [elements of R*SK] is likely to dilute the distinctive quality of the R*SK game" (can't be too careful here). It seems to me that Hasbro would like to imply that they own the m*n*p*ly (is that a Hasbro trademark too?) on all R*SK-like games, but all that's legally enforceable is the R*SK name and actual written rules. I agree that a R*SK-like strategy game that didn't actually use the name "R*SK" or copy its rule book verbatim (and I don't know whether the offending game did that) should be legally okay. After all, there haven't been any lawsuits in the video game industry, where every single FPS that ever existed is exactly the same as every other one other than the name...

The problem here is not one of Copyright, but...

[Svartalf (2997)]

...one of Trademarks. While I'm not a lawyer, I am rather familiar with the various "IP" laws, being an inventor and an author of SF. Since the online Risk game used the name, the guy who wrote the Google Maps version had a problem with that part specifically- and Hasbro DID have a right to ask him to stop calling it that. The other claims of the elements of Risk are bogus since these are NOT really trademarkable, only Copyrightable. Since Copyright only covers the SPECIFIC implementation of an idea, they really didn't have a leg to stand on as this was a game, played on the Web that used Google Maps to render portions of the screens- NOT a board game like Risk is. The MAIN reason why the guy pulled it was one of not having the funds to put up a defense against the rest of the complaints Hasbro fobbed off on him. And, that's the biggest complaint I've got about how the "IP" laws are worded- the rich are the only ones that can actually use it or defend against spurious uses thereof. If you're a rights holder, you only have as much protection for your "IP" as you have cash to burn defending your rights. If you're not and aren't really infringing on things, you only have as much defense against unreasonable claims as you've got cash to burn defending your rights.

Re:So don't use the name RISK?

[DrunkenTerror (561616)]

Global War, a BBS door game.

It's still around. You can download it here [johndaileysoftware.com]. You'll need a BBS to run it any way other than hotseat multiplayer. Or you could log onto any one of hundreds of BBSs [synchro.net] that could be running it.

Litigious bastards

[plams (744927)]

Hasbro has a long history of suing amateurs who make games based on their games. I think they own a lot of classic arcade games too (e.g. from acquiring atari), so when someone makes, say, a Missile Command clone they also issue legal threats. Makes my inner baby cry.

Re:Litigious bastards

[by Anonymous Coward]

yup, they tried a long time ago to stop a bunch of us that were publishing alternative rules to Risk. I.E. you hat to own risk and then add in our rules that were 100% origional to enhance the game. They sent letters we flipped them the bird by publishing all of the rules and giving out thousands upon thousands of copies at College campuses.

today I can find many of our add-on rules modified slightly and on the internet (mutually assured destruction Risk with nukes, and Alien attack Risk with having the green be aliens that are trying to take over the world... required 2 sets of risk pieces to give the aliens overwhelming forces, and the only way to win was to contain the alien beachhead from the very beginning.)

Their lawyers told me and the around 15 scattered friends around the globe that we were not to distribute the rules and we were to destroy them. WE did the opposite, instead of selling the 5 photocopied sheets for $0.50US we gave them to everyone everywhere.

The only answer is to do what they do not expect and go against their demands, that is the only way to deal with the scum that are lawyers.

Obligatory Seinfeld Quote

[dancingmad (128588)]

One thing this reminded me of is how cool Risk is. My office is now in its 3rd round... Africa will be mine!

Jerry: "A game of world domination played by two people who can barely run their own lives!"

I kid, I kid!

FreeRisk? Google Maps? Why not the Blue Marble?

[Lord Satri (609291)]

Couldn't there be a way to make a FreeRisk.org in the same way there is a FreeCiv.org [freeciv.org]? And thus, bypass legal limitations?

Civ IV can even use NASA Blue Marble tiles [slashgisrs.org], I don't see why a FreeRisk or not-so-free Risk couldn't make use of NASA's Blue Marble data. It would be more beautiful than a Google Map basemap. Am I wrong?

Clearly, this is another example where IP impeds innovation...

New Game To Play on Maps

[thpdg (519053)]

Monopoly.

One has to wonder

[Fahrvergnuugen (700293)]

how has Lux [sillysoft.com] escaped the wrath of hasbro?

Variations

[plopez (54068)]

There is a variation called 'space 2440' or something like that which won a court case against Hasbro IIRC.

The map was different, the rules slightly as well. In addition to continents you had space and ocean colonies and more sophisticated pieces + rules. I found it more intersting than plain "Risk".

The name "Risk" itself is a generic term and as such, from what I understand of copyright law, cannot be copyrighted.

If he were to change the rules and call it 'Risk ' then he should be OK. Though Hasbro may win de facto if the game author doesn't have the resources or will to deal with lawyers.

Re:Trademark

[networkBoy (774728)]

It is unnerving when you get one of those letters.
here's mine:
http://farmersreallysucks.com/cgi-bin/QAD_CMS.pl?p age=E1_First_Takedown.html [farmersreallysucks.com]
Anyway, my first reaction was "Oh Shit, Oh Shit, Oh Shit" then I took some time and realised that they were using baseless assertions, thus I got a little pissed. Finally I spent the next week looking up laws in US Title 15 and writing my rebuttal (the red text).
-nB

Re:Hasbro not necissarily evil

[damsa (840364)]

It's not copyright, it is trademark law. They don't want Risk to become a generic name for a world domination game. That way when you buy a Risk game you know what kind of rules it comes with. The Yo Yo used to be a trademarked term as well.