3 ms·

I've been a long time fan of Star Control. I've been watching things for a while. If you check out YouTuber Law on YouTube, you can get a really good take. N

I've been a long time fan of Star Control. I've been watching things for a while. If you check out YouTuber Law on YouTube, you can get a really good take. Not a lawyer, so my layperson's understanding: The creators sold the rights for Star Control's trade mark, marketing and distribution rights on the condition that if the game fails to generate $1,000 in revenue then all rights revert to them. The distributing company eventually stopped selling the game. The creators presumed the rights reverted to them, but never got a declaratory judgement to legally cover that they did. The defunct rights were eventually sold through companies until it wound up with Atari, who sold the trade mark rights to Stardock. Stardock believes that the contract for the copywrite is still in effect; thus, they own the franchise. Stardock wanted to make a game and began doing so. It's he said/she said at this point: Creators says they were in discussions with Stardock who wanted to by rights to the copywrite to make a game, but ultimately the creators said, "No, we want to make a sequel." Stardock says they told the creators they have the rights to make the game and wanted their blessings/input. There appears to be evidence that Stardock's version of events have changed over time and misrepresents events. Whatever the case, Stardock decided to go ahead with the idea that the most the creators could own is the original characters, artwork and music. So, they made a game with the core idea but with alternate versions of the characters, art and music. The DMCA takedown was issued because it appears that Stardock then decided to use some original characters in the game, to which the original creators claim copywrite. The most recent court ruling was less than stellar for Stardock, who used very poor legal arguments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ieb1ajwwUFo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ieb1ajwwUFo

Centigonal 8y ago
Thanks for the succinct explanation & video!
smacktoward 8y ago
Good summary! One small correction/amplification: > Stardock wanted to make a game and began doing so. It's he said/she said at this point The filing in the Leonard French video indicates that the court has access to correspondence between Wardell and Reiche/Ford from this period, in which Wardell explicitly acknowledges Reiche/Ford's claims to the SC1/2 IP and says that he accepts those claims as valid and would not incorporate such IP into his new game without a license from them. (Which Reiche/Ford refused to grant.) Much later on, Stardock released DLC content packs for Star Control: Origins that incorporated some of those very IP elements Wardell acknowledged Reiche/Ford's rights to into that game. Example: - Star Control: Origins Arilou Content Pack: https://steamdb.info/app/899550/ https://steamdb.info/app/899550/ - The Arilou alien race from Star Control and Star Control 2: http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/Arilou_Lalee%27lay http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/Arilou_Lalee%27lay So if Wardell is saying now that he has never accepted Reiche and Ford's claimed rights to the SC1/2 IP, and the court has written evidence that at one point in the past he absolutely did acknowledge those rights, that would put the dispute outside the "he said/she said" zone.
- Benjamin_Dobell 8y ago
  Typically when you buy a franchise you have the right to use characters and develop derivative stories. Acknowledging that Reiche and Ford own the IP for Star Control 1 & 2 probably just means Stardock don't expect royalties from those exact titles. This is actually really common place and appears near identical to how 20th Century Fox owns rights to Star Wars Episode 4 but Disney own the franchise and can use the same characters and develop derivative products.
  - anjbe 8y ago
    The rights for Star Control have historically been seen as follows: • Reiche and Ford own the entire copyright on Star Control I and II, including code, story, universe, etc. • Reiche and Ford own copyright in the characters reused in Star Control III, but Accolade owned the code and all characters/concepts new to the SC3 universe. (Accolade had to get permission from Reiche and Ford to use their characters in this game.) • The name/trademark Star Control has always been owned by Accolade. • Distribution rights and royalties for SC1 and SC2 were granted to Accolade for a fixed period of time, or until a fixed period went by with no sales, or until Accolade ever went bankrupt. All this was written down in a contract between Reiche/Ford and Accolade decades ago; the original document is readable in the court filings. All three of the termination conditions above have since occurred, so Reiche and Ford claim—correctly, in my layman’s opinion—that the distribution rights for SC1 and SC2 (except for the name) reverted to them years ago. When Atari tried to sell SC1, SC2, and SC3 on GOG in 2011, Reiche and Ford disputed it. Both sides agreed to split revenues equally, and the game went back up on GOG (see the email chain in https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/2/27/report-from-planet-surface https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/2/27/report-from-pla...). But when Stardock tried the same thing on Steam in 2017, relations soured dramatically, leading to a Stardock lawsuit claiming Reiche and Ford hold no rights and were not the creators, and DMCA takedowns from Reiche and Ford.
    - Benjamin_Dobell 8y ago
      After watching that video on the court ruling re: DMCA I agree with you that it's pretty clear Stardock are in the wrong here. In my comment above I just wanted to point out it's possible to own IP and distribution rights a particular media release, without necessarily owning franchise IP and future distribution rights. However, it seems that while Stardock supposedly thought they bought the Star Control (lore) franchise/IP from Atari/Accolade; that's simply not the case as Atari never owned the franchise, just Star Dock 3 additions to the franchise and the trademark.

Centigonal 8y ago

Thanks for the succinct explanation & video!

smacktoward 8y ago

Good summary! One small correction/amplification: > Stardock wanted to make a game and began doing so. It's he said/she said at this point The filing in the Leonard French video indicates that the court has access to correspondence between Wardell and Reiche/Ford from this period, in which Wardell explicitly acknowledges Reiche/Ford's claims to the SC1/2 IP and says that he accepts those claims as valid and would not incorporate such IP into his new game without a license from them. (Which Reiche/Ford refused to grant.) Much later on, Stardock released DLC content packs for Star Control: Origins that incorporated some of those very IP elements Wardell acknowledged Reiche/Ford's rights to into that game. Example: - Star Control: Origins Arilou Content Pack: https://steamdb.info/app/899550/ https://steamdb.info/app/899550/ - The Arilou alien race from Star Control and Star Control 2: http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/Arilou_Lalee%27lay http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/Arilou_Lalee%27lay So if Wardell is saying now that he has never accepted Reiche and Ford's claimed rights to the SC1/2 IP, and the court has written evidence that at one point in the past he absolutely did acknowledge those rights, that would put the dispute outside the "he said/she said" zone.

Benjamin_Dobell 8y ago
Typically when you buy a franchise you have the right to use characters and develop derivative stories. Acknowledging that Reiche and Ford own the IP for Star Control 1 & 2 probably just means Stardock don't expect royalties from those exact titles. This is actually really common place and appears near identical to how 20th Century Fox owns rights to Star Wars Episode 4 but Disney own the franchise and can use the same characters and develop derivative products.
- anjbe 8y ago
  The rights for Star Control have historically been seen as follows: • Reiche and Ford own the entire copyright on Star Control I and II, including code, story, universe, etc. • Reiche and Ford own copyright in the characters reused in Star Control III, but Accolade owned the code and all characters/concepts new to the SC3 universe. (Accolade had to get permission from Reiche and Ford to use their characters in this game.) • The name/trademark Star Control has always been owned by Accolade. • Distribution rights and royalties for SC1 and SC2 were granted to Accolade for a fixed period of time, or until a fixed period went by with no sales, or until Accolade ever went bankrupt. All this was written down in a contract between Reiche/Ford and Accolade decades ago; the original document is readable in the court filings. All three of the termination conditions above have since occurred, so Reiche and Ford claim—correctly, in my layman’s opinion—that the distribution rights for SC1 and SC2 (except for the name) reverted to them years ago. When Atari tried to sell SC1, SC2, and SC3 on GOG in 2011, Reiche and Ford disputed it. Both sides agreed to split revenues equally, and the game went back up on GOG (see the email chain in https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/2/27/report-from-planet-surface https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/2/27/report-from-pla...). But when Stardock tried the same thing on Steam in 2017, relations soured dramatically, leading to a Stardock lawsuit claiming Reiche and Ford hold no rights and were not the creators, and DMCA takedowns from Reiche and Ford.
  - Benjamin_Dobell 8y ago
    After watching that video on the court ruling re: DMCA I agree with you that it's pretty clear Stardock are in the wrong here. In my comment above I just wanted to point out it's possible to own IP and distribution rights a particular media release, without necessarily owning franchise IP and future distribution rights. However, it seems that while Stardock supposedly thought they bought the Star Control (lore) franchise/IP from Atari/Accolade; that's simply not the case as Atari never owned the franchise, just Star Dock 3 additions to the franchise and the trademark.