5 ms·

I don't know the copyright claims process Atari uses, but the review[0] of Vector Tank the Kickstarter page links to says: First, let's step back a moment an

by biot 15y ago

I don't know the copyright claims process Atari uses, but the review[0] of Vector Tank the Kickstarter page links to says: First, let's step back a moment and take a look at the overall Vector Tanks situation. Peter's original Vector Tanks appeared in the App Store, published by Chillingo, just over one year ago. It delivered a stylized iPhone take on Ed Rotberg's 1980 arcade classic Battlezone, with a large helping of modern-day retro, thanks to the lovely glowing vector effects that make the iPhone's screen feel more like an Atari Quadrascan display than a 3.5-inch LCD. That's fairly telling. Additionally, if I were to come up with a generic name to describe Battlezone, Vector Tanks would be a top pick. I'm not experienced with copyright with respect to clones of games, but Atari might be the victim here. EDIT: Even more damning, the original Vector Tanks review details how the creator loved Battlezone so much he wanted an iPhone version[1]. So he created one. The original app's description: Vector Tanks is a Battlezone remake with a "future retro" feel. It's great fun and is perhaps the most enjoyable retro offering to be found in the App Store. EDIT 2: The VentureBeat article[2] puts the nail in the coffin: Vector Tanks programmer Peter Hirschberg commented to VentureBeat: “The cruel irony here is that I tried for years to get ahold of Atari to license their IP but they seemed to have fallen off the planet. Now this. It’s very depressing.” The developer originally recognized the need for a license but, unable to contact Atari, decides to clone the game anyways. [0] http://toucharcade.com/2010/03/01/a-closer-look-at-vector-tanks-extreme/ http://toucharcade.com/2010/03/01/a-closer-look-at-vector-ta... [1] http://toucharcade.com/2009/02/16/a-look-at-retro-3d-shooter-vector-tanks/ http://toucharcade.com/2009/02/16/a-look-at-retro-3d-shooter... [2] http://venturebeat.com/2011/12/30/ataris-latest-legal-actions-appear-to-be-putting-the-squeeze-on-hundreds-of-apps/ http://venturebeat.com/2011/12/30/ataris-latest-legal-action...

kls 15y ago
Copyright is supposed to cover the actual code written and not the inspiration, if the original code base and images where not used and no trademarked assets where used then there should be no infringement. It is the reason that I can go out and write a spreadsheet application even though there are other spreadsheet applications. I can even draw my feature inspirations from other offerings. So long as I do not use their code and write it myself, I have not violated copyright. Now I am sure Atari has a trademark on Battlezone, but I think the tanks themselves would be too liberal of an icon to actually constitute a trademark, they probably have a trademark on the font lettering and the name Battlezone as applied to games. They would have a hard time wining this case in court, on either copyright or trademark grounds, which should be the bar that Apple is applying. If I where Apple, I would make all parties agree to arbitration and then comply with the outcome of that arbitration, even if Apple has to pay for such arbitration, it is a known cost, they are a third party with legal liability and I am surprised that they are comfortable in that position with such a loose process.
- biot 15y ago
  Someone else mentioned the Atari and Munchkin case. The facts were similar. North American developed K.C.Munchkin and originally wanted to obtain a PAC-MAN license. When they were unable to do so, they came up with the K.C.Munchkin name and changed a number of features. The appeals court ruled in favor of Atari and granted an injunction against North American: http://www.patentarcade.com/2005/04/case-atari-v-north-american-phillips.html http://www.patentarcade.com/2005/04/case-atari-v-north-ameri... Actual ruling: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16433139020722034724&q=672+F.2d+607&hl=en&as_sdt=2002 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1643313902072203... I think your arbitration idea has merit, though the DMCA's claim/counterclaim process was designed to handle this type of situation.
  - kls 15y ago
    Yeah i tried to disclaim it with "it is supposed" because the rulings have been all over the board. I agree that the claim/counterclaim should be used properly but, for me personally if I where Apple I would arbitrate to CYA alone. It's a small price to pay, to be able to prove you exhausted all means to arbitrate the dispute as a third party. I think most would rule out liability on Apples part if they did so.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- trun 15y ago
  Exactly. Here's what the US copyright office says[1]... "Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form." [1] http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html
- stonemetal 15y ago
  Copyright is supposed to cover the actual code written True if the original code base and images where not used... then there should be no infringement. Not so true anymore. Copying a work doesn't mean Xeroxing it. You can do 100% of the work, draw all the images yourself etc. As long as the output is, shall we say, unreasonably similar then it is copyright infringement. In this case all he had to do is not directly copy the artwork and everything would have been free and clear. Look at the images of the tanks in both games it is pretty open and shut to me.

by biot 15y ago

kls 15y ago

Copyright is supposed to cover the actual code written and not the inspiration, if the original code base and images where not used and no trademarked assets where used then there should be no infringement. It is the reason that I can go out and write a spreadsheet application even though there are other spreadsheet applications. I can even draw my feature inspirations from other offerings. So long as I do not use their code and write it myself, I have not violated copyright. Now I am sure Atari has a trademark on Battlezone, but I think the tanks themselves would be too liberal of an icon to actually constitute a trademark, they probably have a trademark on the font lettering and the name Battlezone as applied to games. They would have a hard time wining this case in court, on either copyright or trademark grounds, which should be the bar that Apple is applying. If I where Apple, I would make all parties agree to arbitration and then comply with the outcome of that arbitration, even if Apple has to pay for such arbitration, it is a known cost, they are a third party with legal liability and I am surprised that they are comfortable in that position with such a loose process.

biot 15y ago
Someone else mentioned the Atari and Munchkin case. The facts were similar. North American developed K.C.Munchkin and originally wanted to obtain a PAC-MAN license. When they were unable to do so, they came up with the K.C.Munchkin name and changed a number of features. The appeals court ruled in favor of Atari and granted an injunction against North American: http://www.patentarcade.com/2005/04/case-atari-v-north-american-phillips.html http://www.patentarcade.com/2005/04/case-atari-v-north-ameri... Actual ruling: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16433139020722034724&q=672+F.2d+607&hl=en&as_sdt=2002 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1643313902072203... I think your arbitration idea has merit, though the DMCA's claim/counterclaim process was designed to handle this type of situation.
- kls 15y ago
  Yeah i tried to disclaim it with "it is supposed" because the rulings have been all over the board. I agree that the claim/counterclaim should be used properly but, for me personally if I where Apple I would arbitrate to CYA alone. It's a small price to pay, to be able to prove you exhausted all means to arbitrate the dispute as a third party. I think most would rule out liability on Apples part if they did so.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
trun 15y ago
Exactly. Here's what the US copyright office says[1]... "Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form." [1] http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html
stonemetal 15y ago
Copyright is supposed to cover the actual code written True if the original code base and images where not used... then there should be no infringement. Not so true anymore. Copying a work doesn't mean Xeroxing it. You can do 100% of the work, draw all the images yourself etc. As long as the output is, shall we say, unreasonably similar then it is copyright infringement. In this case all he had to do is not directly copy the artwork and everything would have been free and clear. Look at the images of the tanks in both games it is pretty open and shut to me.