4 ms·

#2 is so frustrating. I have heard multiple reports of parties who were interested in remaking a game, only to discover that due to multiple mergers/acquisition

#2 is so frustrating. I have heard multiple reports of parties who were interested in remaking a game, only to discover that due to multiple mergers/acquisition/re-licensing deals over time, nobody is sure who retains the rights. Rather than engage in the legal quagmire, the remake does not happen.

tkems 3y ago
Another issue I've personally run into is historic and family photos. Since the person who took the photo is often the copyright holder, often times old photos with no known information can cause some issues with publishing or archiving. A more detailed example: I was scanning some family photos (for backup/archive/family use, no publishing as of now) and noticed that several have small stickers marked with copyright notices of the small town photography company that took them. I asked my family members and they said the company is no longer in business, but I worry that those photos will never be able to be published until after well over 100 years after it was taken. How can I track down the copyright for such photos?
- redeeman 3y ago
  if you're that concerned, crop, or use the newfangled "AI" to fill out the missing parts
  - paholg 3y ago
    So just illegally publish them anyway? The law should provide a mechanism here, but does not.
    - redeeman 3y ago
      agreed, but it doesnt, and so one acts accordingly :)
- NewJazz 3y ago
  If you hire a photographer to photograph you, don't you own the copyright as their employer? Unless they took the photographs for free, the copyright notices they put on them are fraudulent.
  - jdlshore 3y ago
    It’s very common for portrait photographers to retain the copyright for photos they take, or at least it used to be.
  - tkems 3y ago
    From my understanding, the copyright is held by the photographer unless you have a contract stating such. I was shocked that most wedding photographers consider giving up copyright a deal breaker (unless you pay a huge amount more): https://www.reddit.com/r/WeddingPhotography/comments/10esy2i/never_give_up_your_copyright/ https://www.reddit.com/r/WeddingPhotography/comments/10esy2i... edit: If you are working as a employee (think W-2), it is different. Just hiring someone to take pictures (think 1099/contractor), I think is not covered under the same rules.
  - freejazz 3y ago
    All creators maintain copyright in their works, unless its specifically stated that it's a work for hire, or you specifically transfer the copyright in a written document. Copyrights accrue to the creators of things, not the financiers of things. It is often the case that creators of things sell their copyright interest to financiers, so the financiers can capitalize on the exclusive rights the copyright grants.
  - turquoisevar 3y ago
    The short answer: it depends. The long answer: not unless transfer of copyright was explicitly part of the agreement. Slightly longer answer: In most cases nowadays when you hire a photographer, the photographer retains the copyright and will ask a considerable amount to transfer those rights to you. What you’re essentially are paying for is for them to take the photos (cheapest option), for them to print the photos after taking them (slightly more expensive), or for them to hand you the digital photo files (expensive). Neither of those options transfer copyright, as copyright is in principle granted to the person who takes the photos. Wedding photographers are notorious for monetizing every aspect of the job (I say this without value judgement) for example, where you pay a fee to cover the event, a fee for printing photos and a fee for receiving digital copies (because you don’t have to pay them for printing).
- lancesells 3y ago
  I think you're overthinking this one. Unless those photos are being used commercially somewhere or you have a famous family I doubt you have to worry about anything.
GuB-42 3y ago
I know someone who did a translation for a game, a "doujin" Japanese visual novel. He got in touch with the author in order to license the game, and that went well. He then considered doing another game by the same author. Problem for the next game was the music. The original author commissioned about a dozen of artists, problem is, he didn't own the rights, only a licence for having the music in the original game. So the translator had to find a way to get in touch with all of the rights-holders and negotiate a license for the translation with each one. Because he is just one man, it was simply too much work and he abandoned the project. It is actually a rather common situation. It may result in cancelled projects, changing the music with a varying level of success or just removing it altogether.
- johnnyo 3y ago
  My understanding is this is why some old TV shows aren’t streaming despite interest. “WKRP in Cincinnati” has so much music in the episodes that the licensing costs to stream it today would be prohibitive.
  - fbdab103 3y ago
    Some shows have aired with the music replaced. I recently re-watched Neon Genesis Evangelion, and the iconic closing music (Fly Me to the Moon) was replaced with something else entirely. We have entered 1984 where history is mutable.
    - brokenmachine 3y ago
      Dawson's Creek is the canonical example for me. The music was such a part of the show. Now it seems impossible to get the original series as it aired at the time. Even the pirates have failed me in this instance. >We have entered 1984 where history is mutable. It's terrible. I worry about the same thing for children playing online games nowadays as well. Once the servers inevitably go offline, they will never be able to replay their childhood games. This is our cultural heritage, our shared memory. Gone.
- przemub 3y ago
chottocharaii 3y ago
I’d expect that if the maker undertook a thorough and well-documented search for the rights holder; then just made it anyway, they’d legally be covered 1) It might be hard for the rights holder to assert their copyright at a later stage, if they lack the evidence to do so at the outset 2) any damages awarded might be mitigated by the attempts to search for the rights holder, especially if the ‘true’ owner was contacted at some stage. Seems more likely they’d be compensatory as opposed to punitive I know this isn’t the prevailing legal practice, but as a lawyer, the lack of a willingness to be bold in these legal situations has always surprised me Perhaps the tail risk of being slapped down is just too large I’ve always wondered about a business model of searching for such works, undertaking a bona-fide effort to find the owner, and then just selling it as your own if one can’t be identified. (Perhaps with a war chest kept in reserve for the rare instances licensing fees are demanded later). ‘Copyright squatting’ if you will
- andreareina 3y ago
  You willing to have your clients rely on your advice as counsel to do that?
  - chottocharaii 3y ago
    Riskier legal plays have been made
- coldacid 3y ago
  >I’d expect that if the maker undertook a thorough and well-documented search for the rights holder; then just made it anyway, they’d legally be covered In a sane, rational world that would probably be the case. Too bad we don't live on one!
  - chottocharaii 3y ago
    We need orphan work legislation to clarify the law in this area
    - 3y ago
colonelpopcorn 3y ago
Practically all of Activision's PS2 era catalog falls under this banner. We only recently got re-releases of their Star Trek stuff and a lot of their Marvel/movie tie-in games are MIA.

tkems 3y ago

Another issue I've personally run into is historic and family photos. Since the person who took the photo is often the copyright holder, often times old photos with no known information can cause some issues with publishing or archiving. A more detailed example: I was scanning some family photos (for backup/archive/family use, no publishing as of now) and noticed that several have small stickers marked with copyright notices of the small town photography company that took them. I asked my family members and they said the company is no longer in business, but I worry that those photos will never be able to be published until after well over 100 years after it was taken. How can I track down the copyright for such photos?

redeeman 3y ago
if you're that concerned, crop, or use the newfangled "AI" to fill out the missing parts
- paholg 3y ago
  So just illegally publish them anyway? The law should provide a mechanism here, but does not.
  - redeeman 3y ago
    agreed, but it doesnt, and so one acts accordingly :)
NewJazz 3y ago
If you hire a photographer to photograph you, don't you own the copyright as their employer? Unless they took the photographs for free, the copyright notices they put on them are fraudulent.
- jdlshore 3y ago
  It’s very common for portrait photographers to retain the copyright for photos they take, or at least it used to be.
- tkems 3y ago
  From my understanding, the copyright is held by the photographer unless you have a contract stating such. I was shocked that most wedding photographers consider giving up copyright a deal breaker (unless you pay a huge amount more): https://www.reddit.com/r/WeddingPhotography/comments/10esy2i/never_give_up_your_copyright/ https://www.reddit.com/r/WeddingPhotography/comments/10esy2i... edit: If you are working as a employee (think W-2), it is different. Just hiring someone to take pictures (think 1099/contractor), I think is not covered under the same rules.
- freejazz 3y ago
  All creators maintain copyright in their works, unless its specifically stated that it's a work for hire, or you specifically transfer the copyright in a written document. Copyrights accrue to the creators of things, not the financiers of things. It is often the case that creators of things sell their copyright interest to financiers, so the financiers can capitalize on the exclusive rights the copyright grants.
- turquoisevar 3y ago
  The short answer: it depends. The long answer: not unless transfer of copyright was explicitly part of the agreement. Slightly longer answer: In most cases nowadays when you hire a photographer, the photographer retains the copyright and will ask a considerable amount to transfer those rights to you. What you’re essentially are paying for is for them to take the photos (cheapest option), for them to print the photos after taking them (slightly more expensive), or for them to hand you the digital photo files (expensive). Neither of those options transfer copyright, as copyright is in principle granted to the person who takes the photos. Wedding photographers are notorious for monetizing every aspect of the job (I say this without value judgement) for example, where you pay a fee to cover the event, a fee for printing photos and a fee for receiving digital copies (because you don’t have to pay them for printing).
lancesells 3y ago
I think you're overthinking this one. Unless those photos are being used commercially somewhere or you have a famous family I doubt you have to worry about anything.

GuB-42 3y ago

I know someone who did a translation for a game, a "doujin" Japanese visual novel. He got in touch with the author in order to license the game, and that went well. He then considered doing another game by the same author. Problem for the next game was the music. The original author commissioned about a dozen of artists, problem is, he didn't own the rights, only a licence for having the music in the original game. So the translator had to find a way to get in touch with all of the rights-holders and negotiate a license for the translation with each one. Because he is just one man, it was simply too much work and he abandoned the project. It is actually a rather common situation. It may result in cancelled projects, changing the music with a varying level of success or just removing it altogether.

johnnyo 3y ago
My understanding is this is why some old TV shows aren’t streaming despite interest. “WKRP in Cincinnati” has so much music in the episodes that the licensing costs to stream it today would be prohibitive.
- fbdab103 3y ago
  Some shows have aired with the music replaced. I recently re-watched Neon Genesis Evangelion, and the iconic closing music (Fly Me to the Moon) was replaced with something else entirely. We have entered 1984 where history is mutable.
  - brokenmachine 3y ago
    Dawson's Creek is the canonical example for me. The music was such a part of the show. Now it seems impossible to get the original series as it aired at the time. Even the pirates have failed me in this instance. >We have entered 1984 where history is mutable. It's terrible. I worry about the same thing for children playing online games nowadays as well. Once the servers inevitably go offline, they will never be able to replay their childhood games. This is our cultural heritage, our shared memory. Gone.
przemub 3y ago

chottocharaii 3y ago

I’d expect that if the maker undertook a thorough and well-documented search for the rights holder; then just made it anyway, they’d legally be covered 1) It might be hard for the rights holder to assert their copyright at a later stage, if they lack the evidence to do so at the outset 2) any damages awarded might be mitigated by the attempts to search for the rights holder, especially if the ‘true’ owner was contacted at some stage. Seems more likely they’d be compensatory as opposed to punitive I know this isn’t the prevailing legal practice, but as a lawyer, the lack of a willingness to be bold in these legal situations has always surprised me Perhaps the tail risk of being slapped down is just too large I’ve always wondered about a business model of searching for such works, undertaking a bona-fide effort to find the owner, and then just selling it as your own if one can’t be identified. (Perhaps with a war chest kept in reserve for the rare instances licensing fees are demanded later). ‘Copyright squatting’ if you will

andreareina 3y ago
You willing to have your clients rely on your advice as counsel to do that?
- chottocharaii 3y ago
  Riskier legal plays have been made
coldacid 3y ago
>I’d expect that if the maker undertook a thorough and well-documented search for the rights holder; then just made it anyway, they’d legally be covered In a sane, rational world that would probably be the case. Too bad we don't live on one!
- chottocharaii 3y ago
  We need orphan work legislation to clarify the law in this area
  - 3y ago

colonelpopcorn 3y ago

Practically all of Activision's PS2 era catalog falls under this banner. We only recently got re-releases of their Star Trek stuff and a lot of their Marvel/movie tie-in games are MIA.