3 ms·
This statement surprised me. Is it really true? It appears that there is conflicting precedent: "The first approach is from the 2nd circuit "The Subtractive Ap
by ambler0 12y ago
This statement surprised me. Is it really true? It appears that there is conflicting precedent:
"The first approach is from the 2nd circuit "The Subtractive Approach" (Altai, Nichols) and the other approach is "The Concept and Feel Approach" (Ruth Greeting Cards, Krofft)"
http://www.newmediarights.org/guide/legal/Video_Games_law_Copyright_Trademark_Intellectual_Property#What%20parts%20of%20the%20video%20game%20are%20copyrightable http://www.newmediarights.org/guide/legal/Video_Games_law_Co...?
I am curious to know what would happen if someone decided to clone the exact level design of a game but changed all the audio/visual assets.
- mathgeek 12y ago> I am curious to know what would happen if someone decided to clone the exact level design of a game but changed all the audio/visual assets. This actually happened quite often in early generations of computer games and consoles. Super Mario Bros had quite a few clones where all that changed were the visual assets. More recently, there are many examples of this happening on the iOS App Store and other venues with a low barrier to entry.
- ambler0 12y agoI seemed to recall such Mario clones as well. Nintendo is quite protective of their IP, so I have to think that they must have threatened legal action. Does anyone know? Is there precedent for legally protecting the layout of a level?
- emodendroket 12y agoAre these bootleg carts? Otherwise they had to approve of everything that was sold on the NES.
- ambler0 12y agoI think the clone I'm semi-remembering was a PC game. Regarding your second question: There were very many unlicensed Nintendo games. I don't know how many of these Nintendo fought. They very famously battled Tengen over this issue in the courts.
- emodendroket 12y agoWell, yes, that's what I meant by "bootleg."
- GeneralMayhem 12y agoThat such people got away with it doesn't mean it's not a violation of copyright law, just that nobody invested the time and money to sue them.