馃攳
The Copyright Dilemma - On Trademarks, Copyrights, and Patents - Extra Credits - YouTube
Channel: Extra Credits
[0]
Today, We are going to talk about the problems of Trademarks and Copyright in the games industry,
[4]
Which may sound incredibly dull,
[6]
but we exist in a wacky industry, where nothing works quite the way you expect it to,
[10]
and the quirks specifically about copyright laws around games in the US
[14]
Have a major effect on what games get produced.
[17]
[CarboHydroM - Penguin Cap]
[22]
Now this obviously going to be a quick and messy version,
[25]
Because I am not a lawyer, and we are really not interest in the legal technicalities or the specifics.
[30]
This is going to be the broadest strokes, widest generalization version.
[34]
In order to allow us get to the bit that matters to most of us.
[37]
What this means for the games we get to make.
[39]
So lets start off with trademarks because those are a little bit easier.
[43]
Trademarks can be anything that identifies your brand with consumers.
[46]
So the McDonald's Arches or the Nike swoosh.
[49]
These can be symbols but they can also be words, or names, or phrases.
[52]
And to qualify as a trademark, the only real qualifications you need are...
[57]
1) That your mark be unique enough to your brand that it won't confuse consumers with a similar product,
[62]
2) That you actually have to use it.
[64]
You can't just sit on all those trademarks in the world hoping to sue somebody, like you can with patents.
[69]
And 3) You have to defend your trademark if somebody else tries to infringe on it.
[73]
And here is where we get back to games,
[75]
because this is where we get things like Bethesda threatening to sue Mojang.
[79]
over the use of the word "Scrolls" as the title of their game.
[81]
obviously that was ludicrous.
[83]
anybody who plays games would never remotely confuse the 2 titles.
[87]
"Scrolls" as a word by itself is too general to really qualify as a trademark.
[91]
and their games aren't just called "Scrolls,"
[93]
So it was't like Mojang simply stealing their title.
[96]
But, legally that's not exactly how it works,
[98]
Because in the broadest, most quick and messy sense,
[102]
If you don't defend your trademark, you lose legal claim to it.
[106]
So someone in Bethesda's legal division clearly got worried,
[109]
And said "Hey if we don't send Mojang a Cease and Desist,
[111]
we are going to lose are going to lose the right to defend "The Elder Scrolls." "
[114]
And the truth is they probably knew the whole thing was loony while they were doing it,
[118]
And they really didn't care too much about what Mojang was doing,
[121]
But they felt that they needed to make a show of it
[123]
To prevent making potential future cases much more difficult for them,
[127]
Which is why you get so many of these suits.
[129]
Like "Sins Of The Solar Empire Rebellion" being sued over the word "Rebellion"
[133]
Or all of those infamous cases surrounding the use of word "Edge".
[137]
Some of them may have more merit than others,
[139]
and some are clear attempts just to make a quick buck out of a lawsuit,
[142]
but often when you see a ridiculous trademark kerfuffle
[145]
involving a company just asking for a PR backlash by picking on the little guy,
[149]
They may as aware as you are what they are doing is ridiculous.
[153]
But, they gotta do it because that is how the law works!
[156]
Copyright on the other hand is the interesting one.
[158]
Copyright is the protection given to any piece of artistic work
[162]
that says that the entity owning that owning the copyright
[164]
have the exclusive right to distribute that work.
[167]
Which they can basically licence to other people to how ever they want.
[170]
And you can Absolutely copyright a game,
[172]
But, you can't copyright a game design.
[175]
You also can't really patent a game design the way you would with an invention,
[179]
and oh, people have tried both. Believe me!
[182]
Wizards of the Coast famously patented the trading card game method of play back in 1994.
[187]
You can see how that worked out.
[189]
Everybody else started to call their games to collectable card games to avoid any trademark issues,
[194]
And ignore the essentially unenforceable patent anyways.
[197]
Or, if you want a REALLY stupid one, you can check out US patent 8529350B2,
[203]
Where somebody in 2009, yes, just 7 years ago, patented updating stats in a sports video game.
[208]
patented updating stats in a sports video game based on the real world performance of players.
[213]
and like most other game design patents, this one proved unenforceable.
[218]
Or, my favorite one: Nintendo's patent on the sanity meter from Eternal Darkness,
[222]
Whose first line reads: "A video game and game system incorporating a game character's sanity level,
[227]
That is affected by the occurrences in the game, such as encountering a game creature or gruesome situation."
[233]
Which while the idea of tangling with such a big entity as Nintendo may have given some developers pause,
[238]
has not kept a number of games from using the very mechanic described in the first line.
[243]
Now, for years we thought this was great.
[246]
Game design is more like a language than an invention.
[248]
You don't want people patenting the use of a comma, or the idea of a conjunction.
[253]
Instead, you want people to use those things in interesting ways, to create new stories and works.
[257]
And we still think that,
[259]
And I think having game mechanics essentially be something you can't get sued over,
[263]
Helps our whole industry to wonderful and creative things.
[266]
After all, you wouldn't want a company cornering the market on first person shooters,
[269]
Or real time strategy, just because they built the first thing vaguely in the genre.
[274]
But, as much as I am for this open-source mentality
[277]
With the syntax and the grammar that is the language of game design,
[280]
I can't help sometimes scanning the app store,
[282]
Or even some of the pages of Steam,
[284]
And wondering if it's part of what's allowed so many companies to flood the market with blatant theft.
[289]
And I don't mean games that are similar,
[291]
I mean obviously reskinned clones of a successful game,
[294]
Made by companies that clearly don't even really want to be making games.
[297]
I don't think there's really a better solution than the system we have right now,
[301]
And even if you could find a better way to enforce rules around this sort of thing domestically,
[305]
There are plenty of places in the world that aren't very concerned
[308]
About copyrights or patents from other countries.
[310]
Still, it's interesting to think about whether there is a systemic solution
[313]
To the cloning problem this industry is going through right now,
[316]
That doesn't involve letting people horde elements of game design.
[319]
Because I have seen so many small companies with a great idea
[323]
Have their design ripped off by companies with a much bigger marketing budget,
[326]
And essentially be forced out of the market they created,
[329]
With no legal recourse to do anything about it.
[331]
Anyway, I hope that this makes some of those weird game lawsuits you see out there
[335]
Make at least a little bit more sense.
[337]
And I hope that this idea of striking a balance between keeping game design ideas open and available
[342]
And providing some protection for the people who actually come up with
[346]
And are dedicated to providing good versions of that design,
[349]
Gives you something to ponder.
[350]
See you next week!
[352]
*outro music*
Most Recent Videos:
You can go back to the homepage right here: Homepage





