Author
|
Topic: Stardock Litigation Discussion (Read 129907 times)
|
WibbleNZ
Frungy champion
 Offline
Posts: 53
|
we didn’t copy anything
You're not going to convince me Stardock decided to make a trading race and it just happened to be both orange and called Melnorme. Even that little is copying. Not copyright infringement, but still copying. By that standard, how much did Star Control “copy” from Space War and Starflight? Should we send over the Starfleet Battles guy who would be happy to let you know about how much Star Control “copied”.
I don't know those games well, but after some quick searching: more than nothing and less than SC:O. No aliens with the same name and colour that I've found, for example.
No, you should not invoke Mr. KK. Nobody deserves that.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
rosepatel
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 157
|
Also, on the issue of names. From a few legal cases:
http://www.novalis.org/cases/ET.html
The Court also concludes that there is a substantial likelihood that the plaintiffs will prevail on their copyright infringement claim by reason of the defendant's unauthorized appropriation and use of the "E.T." character and name. A character in a work in which the character is central to the story is copyrightable. The defendant's contention that copyright protection for a motion picture does not extend to characters or their names is not well taken in a situation involving a distinctive and well developed character such as "E.T." The test for infringement of a character is the same as that for infringement of any other copyrighted work. The defendant's appropriation and use of name "E.T." on its products satisfies this test because the average lay observer would readily recognize the name "E.T." as having been taken from the copyrighted character.
https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668
Anderson retained the names, relationships and built on the experiences of these characters from the three prior Rocky movies. 1 M. Nimmer, § 2.12 at 2–177 (copying names of characters is highly probative evidence of infringement).
Again, nobody is claiming that you can copyright a word or a name by itself. And nobody would say that merely copying a character's name, by itself, would be infringement.
How much more than that you would need for infringement is a tricky question, and one that's specific to the facts of each case. When it comes to questions of copyright infringement in fiction, the mileage can vary.
But can a copyrighted work of fiction include the names of characters? Typically, yes. If a fictional work is protected by copyright, are characters and names included under the protected material? Yes. If I created a character with the same name as someone else's fictional character, would the court at least consider it as relevant to whether I might have copied your character? Absolutely.
(I really wish these were strawmen I'm responding to. But I've seen people proclaim the hard and fast "you can't copyright a name!" that it bares worth getting into the more practical truth.)
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 15, 2018, 05:39:27 am by rosepatel »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Krulle
Enlightened
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 1115
*Hurghi*! Krulle is *spitting* again!
|
Thank you, rosepetal.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Frogboy
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 231
|
First, let me say Rose that your legwork is exactly the kind of thing that I think adds to the forum. Your post definitely positively affected my perception of you for whatever that is worth.
Second, as a non-lawyer, I read the cases you cited and see what you are getting at. Enough that I asked legal counsel to walk me through, in detail (short version, a couple thousand dollars of legal education but worth it). Because, contrary to what some people seem to think, we don't want to use anyone else's IP. I'm not sure if you read https://forums.starcontrol.com/490381 but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Since I wasn't involved on the project until last year, it's been illuminating to me how much effort has been spent brainstorming the aliens. But hopefully you can recognize that amount of creative energy and love that has been put into this.
So what did the lawyers say? Since our opponents read everything written here I'm not not at liberty to say much. What I will say is that the Arilou isn't Rocky let alone E.T. And we have gone to great lengths to demonstrate that our Arilou are not the Arilou in SC2 complete with several years of evidence that Star Control: Origins is in an entirely different universe with an entirely different background and story.
The Rocky case you brought up was particularly interesting. Chutzpah eh? For those who didn't read it, it would be akin to someone taking the UQM source and assets, making UMQ II and selling it. The guy had no rights whatsoever, he simply decided he could just continue the Rocky stories himself and sell them. Really brazen.
Anyway, Rose, thank you again. On an otherwise unpleasant day, your post turned out to be a nice brought spot. You guys seriously gotta read that Rocky one.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
rosepatel
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 157
|
I've always been relentlessly honest. Most people here have appreciated what's taken you the better part of the year to figure out. I've always reserved criticisms for both sides of the conflict. The fact that my harshest criticisms are for Stardock isn't a product of some kind of bias, but a product of the fact that I've found your behavior to be so much worse.
I wasn't waiting around for you to compliment me. Your word has stopped meaning very much to me, let alone a lot of people here.
It's not that I think you're intentionally lying. It's that I think you mostly repeat things that are self serving, regardless of whether they're true, and don't really care if it turns out to be false. When people try to offer an opinion you disagree with, you skip right passed the listening part, and straight into attack mode.
For the record, I found those cases on the UQM wiki. The wiki that has been meticulously sourced to reliable legal sources, like that one. The wiki that you slandered as biased.
Since we're on the subject, do you understand why Rocky and E.T. are afforded copyright protection? Because it's not clear to me that you do. It seems you have been so obsessed with the Trademark argument that you've completely misunderstood how Copyright is earned, and what Copyright protects.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Frogboy
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 231
|
Ah, thanks for restoring my opinion of you to its previous level. Carry on.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
rosepatel
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 157
|
I never stopped. You're free to listen. Might save you a couple thousand dollars of legal education.
If you want to earn yourself a better reputation, you might have tried the gracious approach well before you suggested doxing other Star Control fans.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 16, 2018, 12:30:43 am by rosepatel »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Frogboy
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 231
|
No, I'm pretty convinced you still don't really understand what you're talking about after having consulted with legal.
I found the case law examples interesting and extended you an olive branch of civility which you promptly slapped. But I appreciate you making it clear what kind of person you are.
We are comfortable with our position on the merits of the case. Thanks for your concern. I don't lose a lot of sleep worrying about my reputation with Paul and Fred's shills and their sympathizers. I have the benefit of being on a lot of other forums and in a lot of other places to gauge our "reputation".
Hopefully after release, Star Control related fan sites, such as this one, will see an influx of people who are interested in talking about the Star Control games again rather than be dominated by a half dozen non-contributors who joined only since February whose sole purpose seems to attempt to make this forum toxic and unpleasant.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 16, 2018, 02:06:52 am by Frogboy »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
CelticMinstrel
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 522
|
Frankly, from my perspective, the only people in this thread (other than the one who was banned) who seem to be making this discussion toxic and unpleasant are you and Serosis. It strikes me as awfully strange that all three people lean toward Stardock's side rather than P&F's side.
Oh, and I find it ironic that you originally popped into this thread because you spotted someone accusing you of dishonesty without proof (the stealing thing or whatever), yet you don't see the problem with accusing your opponents of dishonesty without proof (paying people to support them while posing as neutral).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
rosepatel
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 157
|
Like I said, I'm relentlessly honest. I try to assume good faith, and only call someone out when it's clear they have a pattern that can only be interpreted as reckless, if not malicious. I've told the truth. I've pointed out inconsistencies. I've quoted statutes and case law. Often, I'm quoting Stardock's own words. If you find sit "toxic" when people point out things that you have done, maybe it indicates that deep down, you hate seeing your own behavior described back to you. Some people can take that shame and come to show remorse. But given how quickly you go back to attacking people on this forum, I won't be expecting any apologies any time soon.
If you're just realizing now that a few people on the internet might know a thing or two about the law, that's not an olive branch to me, and is really for your benefit. A much more meaningful olive branch would have been showing some remorse for some of your behavior.
Back on topic.
The Rocky case you brought up was particularly interesting. Chutzpah eh? For those who didn't read it, it would be akin to someone taking the UQM source and assets, making UMQ II and selling it. The guy had no rights whatsoever, he simply decided he could just continue the Rocky stories himself and sell them. Really brazen.
Let's take this scenario and adjust the facts a bit.
The UQM assets could easily be called the Star Control 2 assets. That's how most fans would ordinarily understand them. For legal purposes, it's the same Copyright. It's just been described under two different Trademarks.
Now, instead of a sequel, it's a reboot.
it would be akin to someone taking the Star Control 2 assets, making a Star Control reboot and selling it. The guy had no Copyrights whatsoever, he simply decided he could just reboot the Star Control stories himself and sell them. Somewhat brazen.
Typically, people wouldn't dare reboot someone else's fiction without a Copyright license. And in all likelihood, a judge will find that there is copying, if only in the most minimal sense. And then it's an unsettled question of whether the copying exceeds that de minimis standard, and crosses over into substantial similarity, to qualify as infringement. But if you compare this fact pattern to the Rocky case, Stardock is effectively gambling on the difference between an unlicensed sequel and an unlicensed reboot.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 16, 2018, 04:27:16 am by rosepatel »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frogboy
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 231
|
Let's take this scenario and adjust the facts a bit.
The UQM assets could easily be called the Star Control 2 assets. That's how most fans would ordinarily understand them. For legal purposes, it's the same Copyright. It's just been described under two different Trademarks.
Now, instead of a sequel, it's a reboot.
it would be akin to someone taking the Star Control 2 assets, making a Star Control reboot and selling it. The guy had no Copyrights whatsoever, he simply decided he could just reboot the Star Control stories himself and sell them. Somewhat brazen.
Typically, people wouldn't dare reboot someone else's fiction without a Copyright license. And in all likelihood, a judge will find that there is copying, if only in the most minimal sense. And then it's an unsettled question of whether the copying exceeds that de minimis standard, and crosses over into substantial similarity, to qualify as infringement. But if you compare this fact pattern to the Rocky case, Stardock is effectively gambling on the difference between an unlicensed sequel and an unlicensed reboot.
That's an interesting scenario but not related to Star Control: Origins which exists in a completely different universe, has its own story, lore, setting, etc. and is made by the party who owns the Star Control trademark and owns the only registered Star Control related copyright that has the presumption of validity.
But I agree that if someone were to just scoop up the UQM assets and make a new game, they'd be in trouble. Not as much trouble as someone who decided to announce they were making the true sequel to Star Control while knowing that they had no rights to use the trademark creating vast examples of actual consumer confusion.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
rosepatel
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 157
|
To be fair. using someone's Trademark without a license has similar issues. But there's a difference between making a forum post and making a product. Especially given years of announcements involving the same Trademark, unchallenged by the Trademark holder. Including unqualified support from the Trademark holder in the first few weeks after the announcement itself.
If you think that J.J. Abrams could have rebooted Star Trek without a license just because it's a "different universe", you'd be sorely mistaken. Star Control 3 had its own story, lore, setting too, but they still needed the Copyright license.
Maybe you're infringing Copyright. Maybe P&F are infringing Trademark. Maybe both. Maybe neither. The facts of this case are pretty unique. And just as with any case, the exact circumstances can matter a lot. Sometimes the circumstances are a distinction without a difference. Sometimes the circumstances are different enough that it can change the outcome between liability and not.
Both parties are at risk here. Only Stardock is doubling down on that risk, with more potential infringement to come.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
