5 ms·

What are the copyright issues involved with this? People get upset about Zynga and other big game companies cloning games, yet this 'clone' is a direct copy of

by loceng 13y ago

What are the copyright issues involved with this? People get upset about Zynga and other big game companies cloning games, yet this 'clone' is a direct copy of graphics, etc. - minus adding multi-player capability. Not a single mention of this in this thread either at the time of posting this comment.

squintychino 13y ago
The original creator gave up $50k/day and took the #1 game off the market. If he had no interest in continuing to make money off of this game, why would he be interested in pursuing legal action against someone? He'd probably just withdraw the lawsuit when it got too complicated, as that seems to be his M.O.
- downandout 13y ago
  Agreed. He is incredibly unlikely to pursue anyone and has actually given a few of the knockoffs his blessing. You're wrong on one point though...the $50k/day isn't going anywhere. The ads are still active on 100M+ installs. He is still raking in cash and will until people stop opening the game on their devices.
  - loceng 13y ago
    Oh, so because you get away with it - it's okay? Is that your stance with Zynga and other big companies then too?
    - downandout 13y ago
      My stance on this particular matter is that he has done everything short of open sourcing this game, up to and including giving his blessing to several knockoffs. 100M+ people have the original game, and that game is still generating substantial revenue for him. Everyone that already had the game when he pulled it is likely sticking to playing the original. I'm not making a Flappy Bird clone, but I think that those who are probably aren't going to be facing any lawsuits. That's all I said.
- okamiueru 13y ago
  This sound as intelligent as "You shouldn't drink and drive, because you can get a big ticket".
- loceng 13y ago
  Sorry but how do your assumptions to attempt to justify this make copyright infringement OK?
- corresation 13y ago
  The original creator gave up $50k/day and took the #1 game off the market. Why do people think he gave up $50k/day? The hundred million or so installs are still out there. The advertising account is still active and in full effect. It is entirely possible he is making even more from the controversy. Please do not lump me in with the jealous haters who have made the whole flappy bird thing so annoying (jealousy is tiring and obvious, and it has fueled 98% of the commentary on this) -- I applaud him for what he has done. But there is a lot of fiction surrounding this story.
- shawabawa3 13y ago
  > He'd probably just withdraw the lawsuit when it got too complicated, as that seems to be his M.O. I agree with your point but this makes you sound like a complete asshole. Just because you can't imagine giving up $50k/day doesn't mean that he's weak or stupid for doing it (which is the implication I get from this sentence).
  - ozi 13y ago
    such is life
  - visakanv 13y ago
    Just getting a little geeky about social interactions here: the asshole bit is saying "that seems to be his M.O." about anybody- it reduces a person into a predictable pattern and insults their personal agency, even if valid. It doesn't actually imply weak or stupid, it implies predictable, reducible- that's where the insult is. A person can be strong and intelligent and still be insulted by "that seems to be her M.O." </overanalysing>
- Vaskivo 13y ago
  MY GOD! Why is everyone so obcessed with the 50k/day. It's his game and he can do with it whatever he wants! Just because it earns him a lot of money and it is the #1 game in the app stores it doesn't make him obligated to make the choices you would make. Maybe taking it off the market is a stupid decision (which I'm in no position to comment, as the context is a bit too complex). There are guys that accept to be kicked in the nuts for a youtube video. It's stupid, but it's their nuts. They can do whatever they want with it. With that said. While IMO it's ok to do this king of thing, the guy still has it's copyright. By your logic "I don't steal because I may be arrested" is a valid thought. It's not. You shouldn't steal because it's WRONG!
- tsieling 13y ago
  Ownership of content doesn't require a monetary interest, it can be about wanting to control how that content is used. And wow, nice angry sting on the guy. Must really burn to see someone hit success like that and not care about it.
- eXpl0it3r 13y ago
  "Doesn't generate money anymore", "Won't sue me", etc. those are all not in the slightest reasons to infringe copyright. In fact there are never reasons to do so. The only reason why people are doing so at the moment is because they will get upvoted and retweeted because it's Flappy Bird.
MatthiasP 13y ago
IF there are copyright issues, then they are only with Nintendo.
- oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
  AFAIK the assets are all original, so there ARE copyright issues and they AREN'T with Nintendo.
  - dec0dedab0de 13y ago
    I bet Nintendo could convince a jury that the graphics were copied. I doubt they will though.
    - ijk 13y ago
      This is unlikely, especially as its fairly easily demonstrated that they are, pixel-for-pixel, quite different. There have been a lot of non-Nintendo green pipes, internet commentators with small reference pools notwithstanding.
      - rhino369 13y ago
        Copyright doesn't require pixel for pixel similarities.
        ijk 13y ago
        It does require broader similarities than green pipes. And Nintendo is on record that Flappy Bird does not violate their IP.[1] [1] http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/02/10/no-complaints-about-flappy-bird-nintendo-says/ http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/02/10/no-complaints-about-f...
  - kej 13y ago
    You don't have to actually copy assets to be guilty of copyright infringement. Copying the look and feel is sufficient. See any of the Tetris or Pac-Man cases, for example.

by loceng 13y ago

squintychino 13y ago

The original creator gave up $50k/day and took the #1 game off the market. If he had no interest in continuing to make money off of this game, why would he be interested in pursuing legal action against someone? He'd probably just withdraw the lawsuit when it got too complicated, as that seems to be his M.O.

downandout 13y ago
Agreed. He is incredibly unlikely to pursue anyone and has actually given a few of the knockoffs his blessing. You're wrong on one point though...the $50k/day isn't going anywhere. The ads are still active on 100M+ installs. He is still raking in cash and will until people stop opening the game on their devices.
- loceng 13y ago
  Oh, so because you get away with it - it's okay? Is that your stance with Zynga and other big companies then too?
  - downandout 13y ago
    My stance on this particular matter is that he has done everything short of open sourcing this game, up to and including giving his blessing to several knockoffs. 100M+ people have the original game, and that game is still generating substantial revenue for him. Everyone that already had the game when he pulled it is likely sticking to playing the original. I'm not making a Flappy Bird clone, but I think that those who are probably aren't going to be facing any lawsuits. That's all I said.
okamiueru 13y ago
This sound as intelligent as "You shouldn't drink and drive, because you can get a big ticket".
loceng 13y ago
Sorry but how do your assumptions to attempt to justify this make copyright infringement OK?
corresation 13y ago
The original creator gave up $50k/day and took the #1 game off the market. Why do people think he gave up $50k/day? The hundred million or so installs are still out there. The advertising account is still active and in full effect. It is entirely possible he is making even more from the controversy. Please do not lump me in with the jealous haters who have made the whole flappy bird thing so annoying (jealousy is tiring and obvious, and it has fueled 98% of the commentary on this) -- I applaud him for what he has done. But there is a lot of fiction surrounding this story.
shawabawa3 13y ago
> He'd probably just withdraw the lawsuit when it got too complicated, as that seems to be his M.O. I agree with your point but this makes you sound like a complete asshole. Just because you can't imagine giving up $50k/day doesn't mean that he's weak or stupid for doing it (which is the implication I get from this sentence).
- ozi 13y ago
  such is life
- visakanv 13y ago
  Just getting a little geeky about social interactions here: the asshole bit is saying "that seems to be his M.O." about anybody- it reduces a person into a predictable pattern and insults their personal agency, even if valid. It doesn't actually imply weak or stupid, it implies predictable, reducible- that's where the insult is. A person can be strong and intelligent and still be insulted by "that seems to be her M.O." </overanalysing>
Vaskivo 13y ago
MY GOD! Why is everyone so obcessed with the 50k/day. It's his game and he can do with it whatever he wants! Just because it earns him a lot of money and it is the #1 game in the app stores it doesn't make him obligated to make the choices you would make. Maybe taking it off the market is a stupid decision (which I'm in no position to comment, as the context is a bit too complex). There are guys that accept to be kicked in the nuts for a youtube video. It's stupid, but it's their nuts. They can do whatever they want with it. With that said. While IMO it's ok to do this king of thing, the guy still has it's copyright. By your logic "I don't steal because I may be arrested" is a valid thought. It's not. You shouldn't steal because it's WRONG!
tsieling 13y ago
Ownership of content doesn't require a monetary interest, it can be about wanting to control how that content is used. And wow, nice angry sting on the guy. Must really burn to see someone hit success like that and not care about it.
eXpl0it3r 13y ago
"Doesn't generate money anymore", "Won't sue me", etc. those are all not in the slightest reasons to infringe copyright. In fact there are never reasons to do so. The only reason why people are doing so at the moment is because they will get upvoted and retweeted because it's Flappy Bird.

MatthiasP 13y ago

IF there are copyright issues, then they are only with Nintendo.

oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
AFAIK the assets are all original, so there ARE copyright issues and they AREN'T with Nintendo.
- dec0dedab0de 13y ago
  I bet Nintendo could convince a jury that the graphics were copied. I doubt they will though.
  - ijk 13y ago
    This is unlikely, especially as its fairly easily demonstrated that they are, pixel-for-pixel, quite different. There have been a lot of non-Nintendo green pipes, internet commentators with small reference pools notwithstanding.
    - rhino369 13y ago
      Copyright doesn't require pixel for pixel similarities.
      - ijk 13y ago
        It does require broader similarities than green pipes. And Nintendo is on record that Flappy Bird does not violate their IP.[1] [1] http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/02/10/no-complaints-about-flappy-bird-nintendo-says/ http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/02/10/no-complaints-about-f...
- kej 13y ago
  You don't have to actually copy assets to be guilty of copyright infringement. Copying the look and feel is sufficient. See any of the Tetris or Pac-Man cases, for example.