PDA

View Full Version : Here's something you don't see everyday...



Wolf Kanno
06-03-2014, 10:20 PM
... a fan project not being shut down by the company that owns the copyright.

http://www.siliconera.com/2014/06/03/metal-gear-fan-remake-gets-konamis-blessing/

So this is pretty cool.

Dat Matt
06-03-2014, 10:56 PM
I recently saw this particular remake, which was pretty snazzy.

mM9ADXfvnVo

i don't see why Konami would stop them from making it though. It's a boost in interest to the metal gear series and is not a game they are currently selling so why not?

Colonel Angus
06-03-2014, 11:11 PM
If I remember correctly, the only reason they'd have an issue is because they could lose the copyright. One person makes a game & you don't make a stink, soon another then another does, then your intellectual property is no longer yours but it's everybodies. I think @ that point someone else could try to claim the copyright, like let's say Nintendo, & win it.

Slothy
06-04-2014, 12:51 AM
This is why I'm a firm believer in companies worried about losing their IP just coming up with some standard form contract they can get guys like this to sign saying "go ahead and make it and put it out for free, but we still own it." It seems a lot simpler than just shutting everyone down and you don't look like assholes as a result.

Vyk
06-04-2014, 01:05 AM
I don't know if it's copyright issues or trademark. From my understanding (in America anyway) copyright holders are eternal and can do as they please, either sue and shut down a project, or wait and let them do whatever. Even going so far as waiting until it's hugely popular and then stealing all the assets. Generally called copyright trolling

But I think what people are talking about here is actually Trademark, rather than Copyright. My understanding is that to hold a Trademark for something, you must actively support that trademark and protect it from others. If someone uses your trademark, you're obligated to take action or lose the trademark by default. This is what King was supposedly doing to The Banner Saga and other games. Protecting a trademark (one they shouldn't have tried to trademark in the first place).

Maybe Konami doesn't have MGS trademarked for some reason, so they have no obligation to attack fans to protect the trademark

Wolf Kanno
06-04-2014, 02:34 AM
Metal Gear is copyright, you can see the copyright symbol on most of the boxes.

56432

Trademark is more of a process, design or expression meaning it is closer related to a patent than a copyright and from my own limited understanding, has more to do with name recognition and commercial usage.

This is literally a remake of the original game so this is definitely infringement on copyright but it is up to the copyright holder to do anything about it. It is just nice to see a company being cool about letting fans work on it. Usually making fan sequels is more of an issue because if the copyright holder ends up using an idea from a well known enough fan sequel, it is possible the fans could try to sue for infringement, though the fan will most likely lose the case it is still easier for the copyright holder to kill the problem early before it gets into legal issues, which is why things like Chrono Trigger Crimson Echoes got a cease and desist letter.

Raistlin
06-04-2014, 02:45 AM
I don't know if it's copyright issues or trademark. From my understanding (in America anyway) copyright holders are eternal and can do as they please, either sue and shut down a project, or wait and let them do whatever. Even going so far as waiting until it's hugely popular and then stealing all the assets. Generally called copyright trolling

But I think what people are talking about here is actually Trademark, rather than Copyright. My understanding is that to hold a Trademark for something, you must actively support that trademark and protect it from others. If someone uses your trademark, you're obligated to take action or lose the trademark by default. This is what King was supposedly doing to The Banner Saga and other games. Protecting a trademark (one they shouldn't have tried to trademark in the first place).

I'm not much more than a layperson when it comes to copyright, but this is essentially correct as far as I know. Trademarks are about name/brand recognition, copyrights are about IP. While trademark holders do need to aggressively enforce their mark in order to preserve it, copyright holders are under no obligation to sue immediately. In fact, SCOTUS recently ruled in favor of the Raging Bull copyright holder, stating that her lawsuit could go forward despite not bothering to try to enforce her copyright until after the distributors started making money off of it -- many years later (opinion here (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1315_f20h.pdf) -- warning: not remotely interesting to anyone but law geeks).


Maybe Konami doesn't have MGS trademarked for some reason, so they have no obligation to attack fans to protect the trademark

This part is wrong, though. Trademarks are not required to be registered to be enforced.

Ayen
06-04-2014, 07:11 AM
I'm gonna have to buy more Konami games now.

Bolivar
06-04-2014, 02:29 PM
The only thing that worries me about the indie revolution is that we'll lose those creators that want to make awesome games without any remote expectation of getting paid. That instead, we'll have a lot of people making crappy games expecting to be millionaires. Well, we do, but this project demonstrates we need not fear losing the other group.

I concentrated in IP in law school and most of the assumptions here are more or less right. Trademarks are anything that could identify a brand, so the Metal Gear name, the logos, even the stylized "!" and its accompanying noise could be trademarks. Copyright protects original expression, here the characters, artwork, and music of the game. So this project involves both.

While Konami wouldn't necessarily lose their copyright if they don't enforce it, someone could raise a defense that they impliedly consented to any alleged infringement, either through their silence or a history of knowledge and non-enforcement.

Rest assured there is probably a thoroughly nuanced agreement licensing the property to these guys, given the number of limitations they have publicized (they cannot profit or accept donations for it). I think it would be cool if more companies had a kind of form agreement Vivi22 suggested, similar to what Wizards did with the Open Game License to D&D 3rd Edition.