Blizzard Now Claims Full Copyright For Player-Mode 'Custom Game' Mods (arstechnica.com) 156
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: As influential as Warcraft III was in the real-time strategy genre, the game's most enduring legacy might be as the basis for genre-defining, fan-made custom game spin-offs like Defense of the Ancients (aka Dota) and Auto Chess in its wake. Now, Blizzard is taking steps to ensure it retains complete ownership of any such custom games that originate from its titles in the future, including those that come out of Warcraft III's recently released Reforged update.
As noted by PC Gamer, a recent update to Blizzard's Acceptable Use Policy expands the legal rights that custom-game makers automatically assign to Blizzard (new language highlighted in bold; old language available on The Internet Archive): "Custom Games are and shall remain the sole and exclusive property of Blizzard. Without limiting the foregoing, you hereby assign to Blizzard all of your rights, title, and interest in and to all Custom Games, including but not limited to any copyrights in the content of any Custom Games." Blizzard's claim on custom-game copyrights is important because, while it's hard to effectively copyright the basic concept of a game, you can copyright the original characters, art, and writing associated with the game itself. "Under Blizzard's new legal language, any similar games created from the base of Reforged would be completely controlled by Blizzard," adds Ars. "While other developers would be able to copy the general gameplay for their own purposes, any derivative games that use the same name, art, or characters would belong to Blizzard."
"While Blizzard doesn't allow custom-game developers to engage in direct 'commercial exploitation' from their creations, those developers are allowed to accept donations to recoup the 'time and resources' involved in creating the game (with some restrictions). Blizzard also retains the right to 'remove Custom Games from its systems and/or require that a Custom Game developer cease any and/or all development and distribution of a Custom Game.'"
As noted by PC Gamer, a recent update to Blizzard's Acceptable Use Policy expands the legal rights that custom-game makers automatically assign to Blizzard (new language highlighted in bold; old language available on The Internet Archive): "Custom Games are and shall remain the sole and exclusive property of Blizzard. Without limiting the foregoing, you hereby assign to Blizzard all of your rights, title, and interest in and to all Custom Games, including but not limited to any copyrights in the content of any Custom Games." Blizzard's claim on custom-game copyrights is important because, while it's hard to effectively copyright the basic concept of a game, you can copyright the original characters, art, and writing associated with the game itself. "Under Blizzard's new legal language, any similar games created from the base of Reforged would be completely controlled by Blizzard," adds Ars. "While other developers would be able to copy the general gameplay for their own purposes, any derivative games that use the same name, art, or characters would belong to Blizzard."
"While Blizzard doesn't allow custom-game developers to engage in direct 'commercial exploitation' from their creations, those developers are allowed to accept donations to recoup the 'time and resources' involved in creating the game (with some restrictions). Blizzard also retains the right to 'remove Custom Games from its systems and/or require that a Custom Game developer cease any and/or all development and distribution of a Custom Game.'"
Illegal ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Illegal in most places of the world. You can not claim copyright for something you did not create ... or for something you did not pay compensation.
Stupid move anyway ... who is making "mods" if someone else tries to/does claim copyright?
Re: (Score:2)
How?
Blizzard did create it. I seriously doubt that what users create are enough to count as a derivative work.
Re: Illegal ... (Score:5, Interesting)
If it is released for free-as-in-free-beer and users have to buy a legit copy of the game to use the mod, in general they probably will not be able to claim ownership of the work even if all the mod does is allow them to put baggy pants on their PC--the court is very reasonably going to ask just how something that requires buying a copy of the game causes sufficient damages to award you ownership of the mod. (The more trivial the mod, the more likely that bringing the case will annoy whichever judge gets stuck with having to yeet it out.)
This is also a pretty bad PR move; they would be better off having gone with something that explicitly said that mods are required to get a license from them and then stipulated in the license that they reserve the right to revoke it at any time for any reason. (I would also have the noncommercial license given out like condoms at an orgy.) You get the same level of control, without alienating people who you want to have giving you money.
Re: (Score:3)
This, big-time.
Back in the 1990s and early 00's, Gaming MODs were the lifeblood of many online multiplayer twitch-games. I daresay that without MODs, Quake(1, 2, and 3) would have been a mostly-ignored footnote, and not the legend that it became in gaming history (there are STILL pub servers for Quake 3 out there [quakeservers.net] operating just fine, 20 years after the thing came out, and most of them run MODs.) Without MODs, Valve's Half-Life would be another ho-hum game... but thanks to the Counterstrike MOD, another lege
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. People STILL play Quake 3 instead of buying Quake 45 Modern Retro Combat Evolved and its 24 daily DLC season passes.
Re:Illegal ... (Score:5, Insightful)
At least if you've acquired and hold an appropriate license of those products the contents you create with them are your own according to laws in most industrialized nations.
Re:Illegal ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Still, it's a scummy move. One of many. Personally I'd like to see a change in copyright to loosen the rights holder's control over their IP. Copying should be illegal, and making a derivative work that is nothing more than the original and a few superficial changes should be illegal as well, but remixing absolutely should be legal. Someone uses a little bit of your melody or a sample of your song to make their own hit? Tough, be flattered. Mickey Mouse porn? Why not. Someone writes, publishes, and makes a mint off selling Harry Potter fanfic? Totally fine. Because all of that enriches our culture*, and that should be the goal of copyright; not making sure that god forbid anyone should ever make a buck after being inspired by your work, without you getting your cut or your say in the matter.
*) Yes even the Mickey porn...
Re: (Score:2)
I can see how that does not translate well into games, where modders could create a new game and then sell that for money or create a stand alone product that could be used by others without having a license. Particularly because such use cases are already not permitted by the TOS of those g
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, when someone does a full game conversion they're creating new graphics, potentially a new mythology and all the associated artefacts. Giving that for free to Blizzard feels entirely wrong.
Is there a loophole though? "This game mod uses images, sounds, text, characters, story and other IP licenced from (me). The terms are that they can only be used to play this game mod for free." Assign the mod copyright to Blizzard but you retain the copyright on the licenced contents.
Re: (Score:2)
What's going to be interesting is where the line gets drawn between "mods" like DotA, original Counterstrike, etc. and full blown games that license an engine like Unreal Engine or Unity. It seems like Blizzard could argue that these are unlicensed use of their "engine" and show those different business models as industry practice - other software developers are fine with paying for licenses for their engine, so why not these guys?
It's a shitty thing to do, but I don't see a lot of legal argument against t
Re:Illegal ... (Score:4, Insightful)
These custom maps frequently make use of original, copyrightable assets such as textures, foley sound clips, voice acting, music, animation, and scripted commands. In doing so, they frequently make the Warcraft 3 foundation on which they are built nigh unrecognizable. DOTA was the most famous example of course, since it launched a multi-billion dollar genre (MOBAs), but there were numerous micro genres that evolved in that ecosystem, such as tower defense maps and auto chess, among others.
Blizzard certainly has full rights to their own assets, as well as some rights with regards to derivative works that incorporate their assets, but the suggestion that they should have full rights over all derivative works, including those that substantially incorporate assets they did not create is ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
Guess what that started out as...
Of course, if you want to fight it and get that little clause nullified, you'll have to take them to court and they will certainly try to keep it in court until you're bankrupt and unable to sustain the fight so they can win by default. The only ones that can fight trash like that is the very rich and determined ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Illegal in most places of the world. You can not claim copyright for something you did not create ... or for something you did not pay compensation.
What you're saying makes sense.
Let's say I license some artwork from some library, it's not like I can reassign copyright for artwork that I didn't own the copyright to in the first place.
Depends... (Score:2)
If you take away all the Blizzard copyrighted work out of the Mods, is there anything of significant value left in the Mod other than the story concept? Since the stories are pretty much generic with different actors I doubt anyone can claim that part.
In such cases, I think Blizzard is stating what a Judge would agree with.
Re: (Score:2)
Design/Gameplay concept? The two specific examples cited in the summary are distinct enough from the original game's genre that, if you recreated the exact game with different art assets, I doubt the vast majority of people would've seriously linked the two. Possibly DotA would be considered as a variant of the RTS genre, but distinct enough to be a novel experience.
There's also plenty of money derived from the development of the concept-- according to Wiki, DotA2's largest tournament has had a combined pot
Re: Depends... (Score:2)
And if they did swap out the sprites, widgets, backgrounds, field graphics, etc then the modder would have a better argument. They can even recreate one character from various games and claim fair usage as each is not significant to the value of the whole.
But even then you must consider the underlying game engine too. A Judge would consider how much the game play and mechanics are reliant on the company's underlying programs. Are the servers that host these games clean of Blizzards code? Just using the un
Re: (Score:2)
However, a judge will let a game's owner assert copyright in specific game mechanics that are analogous to the size and shape of the ball or the dimensions of the playfield. Tetris v. Xio, 2012.
Re: (Score:2)
If you create new artwork, new characters and put that in your mod. I'm not sure to the extent of what War3 reforged allows you to have new graphics, but it's possible it could support entirely new assets.
In any event, creating characters with their own personalities and identities, even if they used Blizzard's artwork, would still be copyrightable although clearly a derivative work - so Blizzard and you would both own copyright on it. Blizzard are changing the rules so they have exclusive ownership.
Re: (Score:2)
But you wouldn't really "own" copyright on the whole derived work. Blizzard could severely restrict your rights in your ownership (ie: by banning usage of that character/wireframe for whatever on future sales).
I doubt Blizzard has given folks any rights other than usage rights to the single copy they sold you; standard "All rights reserved."... If anything, folks probably have more assumed rights from the fact that Blizzard failed to restrict/notify or let these Mods exist at all. This would erode future
Re: (Score:2)
> Illegal in most places of the world.
Sorry, I am calling bullshit. I am pretty sure that just about anyplace that has modern copyright laws has the idea of derivatives and derivatives require the approval from the original creator for most public use.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and your point?
The derived work has shared copyright. It does not fall to the original creator, regardless if he approves the work or not.
Re: (Score:3)
In the USA [cornell.edu], as in most places of the world, the copyright owner has an exclusive right to prepare and authorize the preparation of derivative work, which these sorts of mods are. The compensation going one way is permission to use the owner's work, as opposed to having to come up with your own, entirely original creation.
In the USA [cornell.edu], as in most places of the wor
Re:Illegal ... (Score:4, Insightful)
In the USA, as in most places of the world, the copyright owner has an exclusive right to prepare and authorize the preparation of derivative work, which these sorts of mods are.
That's a red herring: they have the right to authorize a derivative work. Any unauthorized derivative work is simply unauthorized, but the original copyright holder also has no rights over the derivative work. No one ia allowed to distribute it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No. The general rule is that an adhesion contract is valid and fully enforceable, unless it's unconscionable. Monsanto Co. v. McFarling, 302 F.3d 1291, (Fed. Cir. 2002).
It's also extremely rare rare for a court to find that an adhesion contract is unconscionable. There must something akin to coercion or fraud [justia.com] in the formation of the contract. "They own the game
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"It's reasonable to expect that EULA won't take away copyright of works you create, since such terms are in purview of contracts between creator and publisher, they're not for end user."
The mod creator is not a creator, but an end user?
Also, despite simply rehashing the issue already analyzed in the parent posts, you missed this bit: "This is a subjective test focusing on the mind of the seller and has been adopted by only a few state courts."
Re: (Score:2)
However that does not assign copyright if the derived work to the original creator.
Sigh ... reading comprehension ...
Re: (Score:2)
The problem starts with the fact that you do not own a copy of the game and you simply rent it, read the EULA. It will always state in the EULA that the company that made the software merely grants you a license to use the software for it's intended purpose and if the company has well paid and smart ( read: greedy ) lawyers then a clause that will state, "all derivitive works from the software created by licensees of the software is owned by the creator of the original software". Obviously this can never wo
Re:Illegal ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps your country laws have something about required compensation, but I expect most don't. As for parts of copyrights you cannot transfer:
"To the extent you are prohibited from transferring or assigning your moral rights to Blizzard by applicable laws, to the utmost extent legally permitted, you waive any moral rights or similar rights you may have in all such Custom Games, without any remuneration."
Those moral rights are difficult to use anyway as long as they leave your name somewhere in the credits (
Re: (Score:2)
Except that they are derivative works, which are absolutely claimable under copyright law. I think this is a stretch of that law myself because Blizzard are basically a bunch of worry-about-the-quarterly-results asshats at this point, but the legal theory is there.
Re: (Score:2)
What the (Score:5, Insightful)
"Blizzard Now Claims Full Copyright For Player-Mode 'Custom Game' Mods"
In other words, "you build stuff for us for free and we'll let you beg for money"
Wow.
Re:What the (Score:4, Funny)
I see what you did there.
Re:What the (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a real sign, Blizzard is in real trouble, future income prospects must be really bad, so bad, they want to try to steal everyone else's work because theirs is so shite. Laid of all the expensive staff, hired cheap staff and outsourced. Shitty wages, with the idiotic lie, it is a privileged to work for Blizzard you should be paying us.
I would make book on future revenue targets not to be met and missed by a lot. This is a real panic move to steal content because they have none. How big are their debts, how much has Blizzard been initialised, all the capital removed and a hollowed out debt ridden hulk left in it's place because this move is a sure sign of panic.
Maybe. (Score:2)
I think this is more likely greed than panic. Or rather, I don't see enough evidence from this alone to assume it is panic, and "greed" is the default option.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You've put the wrong spin on it.
They're simply reserving their rights, so if a mod comes along and proves to be really popular, they want to have the right to commercialise it and keep all the profits for themselves, without having to negotiate with the mod's author on what the profit sharing arrangement would be.
It is quite probable that no such popular mod will ever come along which they want to exploit - DotA is probably not going to be repeated. In which case this isn't evidence of them being desperate
Re:What the (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude, it already has been repeated. "The next big game has come from a mod of a previous game" now happens with regular frequency. DotA came from a Warcraft mod, now Auto Chess has come from a DotA mod. PUBG (which inspired Fortnight) started out as a mod to DayZ, itself a mod to ARMA 2.
Blizzard just realized that they totally missed out on a huge cash cow that basically grew up in their basement, and they (falsely) think this will get them a piece of the next one. What would actually help is watching their mod scene and cultivating the most promising modders and game modes, and perhaps actually offering them positions at blizzard to develop their ideas or maybe just buying them outright for a reasonable amount. All this lunkheaded idea is going to do is drive the few modders they have left away.
Re: (Score:2)
Blizzard is in trouble but not for financial reasons. They're still making money hand over fist with WoW and that behemoth will keep lumbering along generating revenue out of sheer momentum.
Blizzard's issue is their IP is stagnant. They've fallen into a cycle of generating revenue from micro transactions and lootboxes. Their big IPs they've managed to kick themselves in the ass when it comes to storylines. Warcraft has been locked into WoW. They provided an ending to StarCraft and they left very few, if any
Re: (Score:2)
I think the summary is wrong and you have misunderstood accordingly.
Headline, "Blizzard kills Custom Games" (Score:5, Insightful)
There will always be a small number who make B rated games for kicks but this is the death of the real quality stuff. Whatever knucklehead at Blizzard who came up with and everyone who approved of this complete bonehead move needs to get fired.
There are just not enough words in English to properly describe how stupid this is so I'll just stop now.
Because that's not Blizzard's goal (Score:5, Insightful)
So Blizzard is using a sleazy (possible illegal) extension of copyright to try to thwart this. If you make mods using their copyrighted content, they're claiming they own what you create. If you comply and hand over the rights to what you make, they're happy. If you say "screw you Blizzard!" and refuse to build mods using their content, they're happy. Either way, they're happy. The only way they lose is if someone takes this to trial and the judge throws out Blizzard's claim.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright law gives an owner the [cornell.edu]
Re: Because that's not Blizzard's goal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"That"?
The exclusive right to prepare derivative works allows them to require the mod to be pulled from the market.
The exclusive right to authorize the preparation of derivative works, on the other hand, lets them claim ownership. "You may prepare derivative works if you assign the copyright to us." If you accept, that's a contract that transfers ownership. "That" lets them claim ownership
Re: (Score:2)
"That"?
The exclusive right to prepare derivative works allows them to require the mod to be pulled from the market.
The exclusive right to authorize the preparation of derivative works, on the other hand, lets them claim ownership.
Sure, but the MOD isn't a derivative work if it contains no content from blizzard, and as far as I can tell, the MODs don't come with any blizzard assets so they aren't derivatives.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't come with any Blizzard assets? How precisely do these mods work without the original game?
Also, the mod itself does not have to contain any Blizzard code. The mere fact that the mod encourages the end user to make an unauthorized combination with the game creates contributory liability for creating a derivative work.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't come with any Blizzard assets? How precisely do these mods work without the original game?
They don't work without the original game. You buy the original game, then you download the mod and patch the game.
Also, the mod itself does not have to contain any Blizzard code. The mere fact that the mod encourages the end user to make an unauthorized combination with the game creates contributory liability for creating a derivative work.
Doesn't matter under copyright law - making a derivative isn't prohibited, redistributing it is. Sure, blizzard may moan and whine about what the EULA says you are allowed to do with the copy of the game you have, but the right to destroy, modify, enhance and change a copyrighted work that you legally purchased isn't going away soon.
That's how Blizzard is able to bring copyright claims against developers of cheat mods [lawinsport.com] for their games.
Blizzard won that (uncontested) case because they did not s
Re: (Score:2)
So you admit that they depend upon the original game. At least we've gotten that far.
"the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: ... (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work ..." [cornell.edu] Denying an easily proved reali
Re: (Score:2)
So counts 2, 3, and 4 did not exist? [scribd.com].
Of course they did, for software that blizzard never licensed to the player, nor ran on the players computer. Bossland would presumably be in the clear had they not bypassed blizzards measures on blizzards servers.
The court's order did not prohibit Cossland from taking any steps... in distributing, advertising, marketing, selling, reselling, uploading, downloading, offering for sale, or otherwise disseminating in the United States any software [torrentfreak.com]
Strawman - I never argued that Bossland won, I argued that they were prohibited from interfering with software running on Blizzards server. That they also interfered with the players licenced copy of the game is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot have read the complaint and come away with that understanding. The WoW client was licensed to the player, and ran on the player's computer (counts 2, 3, and 4).
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright law gives an owner the exclusive right to prepare or authorize the preparation of derivative works [cornell.edu] . How is that an illegal extension of copyright law, asks the IP attorney.
That 'right' I've emphasised only applies for (re)distribution. Copyright doesn't stop you doing whatever the fuck you want with your own property as long as you're not redistributing the elements that are protected by the copyright (the game, the art and the assets).
Presumably the MODs all follow the written letter of the law - the MOD is supplied without any blizzard-copyrighted content and the player supplies their own. At the point that the MOD is combined with the game, the player has both elements an
Re: (Score:2)
No. I've already linked to the the statute. The exclusive right to distribute is another exclusive right, one of six categories provided in 17 USC 106. Your choice to emphasize only one right does not negate the other.
That's the GPL, not copy
Re: (Score:2)
I do this for a living. I link to sources. You're going to have to do much, much better than this.
No need to get snarky - I'm an IP lawyer too, and I've read all the stuff you read. See my other response to you - blizzards win in that case was not copyright violation the players game, but DMCA violation of their server software.
I link to sources.
Yes, you do. With respect, though, you are linking to secondary sources with limited context. Here's what the primary source says [copyright.gov] in s103, b):
The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the pre-existing material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.
This is why blizzard had to file under DMCA violations.
Re: (Score:2)
You're wrong, see my other response to you.
You're still wrong. "[D]oes not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or s
Re: (Score:2)
So basically if you play their games you agree to this restriction.
Guess it's time to purge Blizzard from my PC.
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty clearcut - you can't own copyright in someone else's work. If you get a signed license from the user then you might have somewhere to go with it.
If you say "screw you Blizzard!" and refuse to build mods using their content, they're happy.
But why would they be happy? A rising tide floats all boats and this is going to damage their product. There's no up-side to Blizzard, only to whatever lawyer advised them to do this.
Not entirely. (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
This seems much more likely to be a reaction to the whole DOTA lawsuit fiasco Blizzard had with Valve than a concern about control of modded clients. The idea as I see it is to pre-weight the case in their favor this time if some mod maker ever tried to spin off their mod into an independent game. In a way, I can see their complaint. You used our game as a platform to get a huge audience for your game's proof of concept. The rights to the game should belong to us.
The problem is that it works both ways.
Re: (Score:2)
I made a moderately popular custom game for Starcraft 2 back in the day--Dark Deeds--and I was under the impression back then that Blizzard had already basically claimed all rights for itself. I'm not entirely sure what more they have taken now, but even back then I was never under any illusion that I could claim the IP for myself. It didn't really matter, anyway, because I did not create the original concept or title, but had remade someone else's game from Warcraft III: TFT. So I really had no legal basis
Moving the goal posts again (Score:2)
Why do we let companies get away with this shit? If companies want to play Calvinball with the rules, I hope they get counter sued for all they're worth.
Re: Moving the goal posts again (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You used lumber from Home Depot to build your house. Now they own your house.
Re: (Score:2)
This is about using Blizzard's game engine to make a mod. Don't want them doing this? Then don't use their engine.
Or better yet, tip off movie producers to the fact all of "Bilzzard's" top-played custom maps are based on movies, TV shows, books, or other copyrighted content - Jurassic Park, The Thing, Alien vs Predator, Stargate, Startrek, Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, etc etc etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Consumers might be smart, but in groups they become stupid. It will always be the case
Also, a publisher can change its terms at any time. This usually means current customers won't rethink their purchase.
Also, the law allows moving the goal posts. So until that loophole is closed, it is what it is
Re: (Score:2)
Make art for a game that allows such art to be used in a way the creative artist wants
Which such games are notable?
How base game notability helps an artist's CV (Score:2)
Why do artists need a "notable" game to do their art with?
Say an artist puts having done art with a particular video game on a CV. If the game "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of" the game's developer and publisher,[1] then members of the public reading the CV are more likely to have heard of the game and therefore to understand what an artist is talking about.
[1] From a popular encyclopedia's general notability guideline [wikipedia.org]
if someone who *doesn't* own the rights to someth (Score:3)
if someone who *doesn't* own the rights to something makes a mod with it then what happens?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When someone creates a total conversion mod for Skyrim using entirely custom assets, does Bethesda own that mod? No.
Blizzard does own the assets from the base game that are used by a Custom Game file created using their tool, and a modder cannot/sell or distribute any of those assets or the base game. But to attempt to claim ownership of everything created using their tool would be like Microsoft saying they own every do
Re: (Score:2)
If someone makes a game using Unity, does Unity own the copyright on that game? No.
No but they own the copyright to the game engine and you HAVE TO display the Unity logo, unless you pay for an upgraded license. It's right there in the TOS.
When someone creates a total conversion mod for Skyrim using entirely custom assets, does Bethesda own that mod? No.
They don't own the mod, but they are perfectly within their right to shut the modder down if they want, since it uses - their assets. Look at what happened with Rockstar and the "Hot Coffee" mod. When Rockstar started getting shit they pulled the rug out from under the modder really quick. Bethesda merely tolerates mods. This is not the same as granting
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you miss the bit where they said the Skyrim mod uses "entirely custom assets"?
So none of Bethesda's assets are in the game. All entirely replaced.
Is a game engine copyrightable? I would say yes, and so the mod is still a derivative work.
Re: (Score:2)
That only makes sense if it includes the game engine in its own distribution.
Some tape over the center of your screen creates a permanent aiming reticle you could use with a first person shooter. Presume further that 3M is printing clear electrostatic film with little target symbols and advertising it as "reticle tape".
Does that tape constitute a derived work whose ownership can be claimed by the game seller? That is the relationship a mod has to the original game. Users still need to buy the game to get an
Re: (Score:2)
if someone who *doesn't* own the rights to something makes a mod with it then what happens?
Presumably nothing, since all of Blizzard's top played custom maps are based on major preexisting franchises like LotR or GoT.
Will this cover music and artwork (Score:2)
Will this cover music and artwork??
Say the mod sucks but the one song in it goes Platinum? Does blizzard now own all rights to that song?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
Re: (Score:3)
any such custom games that originate... (Score:2)
I read somewhere that the Tower Defense genre was based on a situation found in Warcraft II, where you only had towers to fight against a stream of enemies entering a town through one gate. Does this mean every single Tower Defense game is their intellectual property?
> it's getting so you can't even say "zug zug" any more
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And if defending yourself from JK Rowling's lawyers that PigWarts isn't a copy of Hogwarts, you'd have to provide some reasonably compelling evidence that you'd never heard of or encountered JK Rowling's works in any capacity.
That could be achievable if you didn't have any access to media in your life and never communicated with someone who had. Pretty difficult to achieve I'd think.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: any such custom games that originate... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, but that's the situation they want to avoid.
They want to make sure they own the next tower defence, dota or autochess if it comes out of their game engine.
Conflict with copyright law (Score:2)
I think Blizzard's terms would run afoul of copyright law, specifically section 204 here (https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html), as it is not signed by the original author.
Re: (Score:3)
Even if so, in paragraph about assigning copyright:
"You further agree that should Blizzard decide that it is necessary, you will execute any future assignments and/or related documents promptly upon receiving such a request from Blizzard in order to effectuate the intent of this paragraph."
Keeping it within Blizzard (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It won't do that, though. You can make a game that's like another game.
This cuts both ways (Score:2)
I'll also be cancelling my WoW account, because regardless of the above this is overreach and supporting Blizzard while they do it is wrong.
if not already (Score:3)
if not done already, it's high time to put Blizzard on your blacklist of game companies.
there are enough other games to play, really.
What about open source assets? (Score:2)
There are plenty of places out there that offer open source, CC0 game assets. How is Blizzard going to assert copyright over said assets if a mod author uses them in a mod?
Re: (Score:3)
Have EA buy them. They will know what to do!
Damnit give me Command & Conquer!
Also Disney how are Monkey Island going?!
Blizzard is bigger than EA (Score:2)
Have EA buy them. They will know what to do!
I'm interested in what kind of leverage that would need.
Electronic Arts (NASDAQ: EA) market cap: 32.76 billion USD
Blizzard (NASDAQ: ATVI) market cap: 46.40 billion USD