- Oct 3, 2015
- Reaction score
- First Language
- Primarily Uses
If you think you can make a good game using an IP, why can't you make a similar game without stealing someone's IP?
Same thing if you intend to lift IP directly. Most commercial satires go around this by creating indirect references (ie, Balrog from Street Fighter being a satire of Mike Tyson, Johnny Cage of Mortal Kombat of Jean-Claude Van Damme, and every Bruce Lee clone in every fighting game ever).This discussion has got me curious about something. What about satires?
If you do, then you're all clear. Chances are very high that you won't. Large companies work very hard to protect the image of their brands, and an endorsement from them for a fan game from an unknown developer is a big risk.GUYS, what if you get permission from the copyright holders to create a fan game, is it still illegal? I'm thinking not...
As long as rights remain with the holder, then you will require permission lest you risk legal action from them.I agree. As long as it existed, it's from someone. Getting something from someone without permission is stealing, so yeah.
Super Mario RPG was a game made by Square in partnership with Nintendo. Mario Maker was a game made by Nintendo designed to allow users to make playable levels within Mario Maker itself. I don't have Mario Maker, but last I checked, there's no way to actually sell said individual levels. SMRPG was officially published by Nintendo, so neither games really fall under discussion here.Hey sabao, how are you? Yeah I asked about getting permission to make a fan game. I have a slightly off-topic question to you and everyone else. First of all has Nintendo given permission to use any of their IP to 3rd parties? Like Mario, Zelda etc...? Super Mario RPG(SNES) is different from the regular side-scrolled Mario. Is it 3rd party? Also what about Mario Maker that came out last month or something, does this give people permission to create Mario games and sell them?
That's a reasonable thought, yes, but outside the scope of discussion. The topic isn't so much about why you should/shouldn't as it is how permissible it would be to do by law.If you think you can make a good game using an IP, why can't you make a similar game without stealing someone's IP?
Actually Grand Chase is still an active game with their Korean server still being live but with halted content creation. (permanently stopped development of new content) The BR (?), NA, LA, Indo, PH and Thai servers all closed down. (rip NAGC, you will be missed cause the current NA private server ForeverGC is under lengthy construction) Also KOG is currently using the remaining Grand Chase assets for their Mobile clicky-RPG game on apple/android, "Grand Chase M" published/partnered with Eye-dentity Games.Grand Chase as a game has ceased, but technically the franchise does still live on in Elsword. Whether or not an IP is active however may be irrelevant. Yes, better safe than sorry.
Making a fangame is by definition always illegal.
It's not just Andar (so I'm sorry for quoting you twice), but several people in this thread. This is categorically wrong.All fan games are automatically illegal of trademark infringment.
Wrong. Copyright violation is not theft - it's called copyright violation for a reason - because it's copying.And it is not "unfortunate" that it is illegal - stealing someone else's IP is theft whether
you use it to make money or not.
Consider if someone stole your game assets, ideas, characters etc. I think you would not be pleased.
But if you get official permission, you're no longer making a fangame, you're now making an official game for that series.It's not just Andar (so I'm sorry for quoting you twice), but several people in this thread. This is categorically wrong.
If you have permission by the copyright holder(s) of the source material for all the material(s) you use in
your fan-game, then your fan-game is not illegal.
A fan-game is not inherently something made without permission, and therefore it is not
inherently illegal either.
Nothing you said is directly wrong - but unfortunately you don't take into account what happened around it.Wrong. Copyright violation is not theft - it's called copyright violation for a reason - because it's copying.
Stealing is what happens when property changes hands without the consent of the owner of the property I.E I gain and you lose.
In the case of copyright violation nothing is changing hands. I am copying something, and you are still left with it as well.
The material in question has been multiplied, not redistributed.
You can hold that this is morally wrong, or reprehensible all you want - and I am not saying I necessarily disagree - but you cannot call it theft. That is another categorical mistake.
It's hyperbole that was sold the public by the music and video industry to combat piracy by convincing law-makers of the seriousness
of the situation. However, granting piracy as a serious problem or not, mischaractrizing it as theft is hardly productive at all - it's even worse
No, that's an original definition - one I do not accept at that.But if you get official permission, you're no longer making a fangame, you're now making an
official game for that series.
So it basically comes down how do you define a fangame as compared to an official game.
And for me that is defined as "a fangame is a game where the creater did not ask (or did not get)
They did. It's called copyright violations and illegal file-sharing among other things.Yes, I agree that the naming left a lot to be desired and I wish they had used other words for
those crimes - but it does not change the fact that they're crimes, not just "morally wrong" but also illegal.
It's a valid defense when major corporation tries to go after breaches on copyright with the sameAnd yes, that wording mess had given those who do copyright piracy a chance to do make a
defense by claiming "copyright infringment is not theft" -
I really wish some of those idiots in the Music Industry had thought about long term
consequences before coining those terms.
But we are left with those terms and conceptions unless we want to start lengthy
debates on how to word what crimes - If we had better words, those criminals could not claim
any moral defense.
I'm sure there are many callous individuals out there who don't care about copyrights and breakBut also don't forget that while a lot of the copyright infringments and trademark violations
are done by kiddies who don't know what they're doing
(or even by idealists who really have no intentions to cause harm in any way),
a lot of those people know exactly what they're doing and using the rest to divert from the
fact that they intent to cash in on other peoples work and hide behind debates like this.
Which is illegal, and should be pursued through the justice system.Let's go to an example that happened hundreds of times:
You're an aspiring artist and using DeviantArt to show your art, even using it to sell some of it as posters, earning yourself a tiny bit of money from your work.
Now someone else comes along, copies your artwork from Deviantart,
prints it out and sells it around (on cons or even on ebay) making money for himself/herself
without ever asking you for permission or giving you any part of that money.
And you have to live with the fact that this crime, can in the eyes of the law, with the correctThat is called "Art Theft" by everyone around. And that is a fact that you have to live with,
even if it is not "Material Theft".
This isn't semantics though - It's me calling out a an extremely naive, ignorant and judgmental attitudeAnd sorry - anyone who even starts to defend that because of semantics
(that already have been discussed to death, and where I agree that the semantics should have been better)
does defend a crime -
specially a crime that leaves the artist out of money that he would otherwise have gotten,
because those copied posters had been sold.
And again, that usually has very little to do with the artists, and almost always everything to doYes, fangames rarely sell - that is why a lot of copyright holders go out of their way to
ignore them as long as possible.
But it isn't only the money that is a problem -
a lot of times the content is also a problem,
especially if the maker of the fangames associate it with concepts that are simply
unwanted by the original author/artist.
Like the Spock/Kirk fandom where the friendship got really intense -
or the fact that in some countries some specific content is directly illegal,
for example you don't want anything of yours connected to the symbols of the Nazi's from WWII
if you live in Germany.
And that's where you're just wrong. That's not why most of these laws were made. They wereAnd that's what it goes down to:
No matter how the content industrie twisted the laws to get more money for themselves,
the main intention and focus of all copyright laws has been to give the creator control of
what is done with his work.
And there you go with the presuppositions again.It is his decision whether it should be sold, copied or whatever.
And by making a fangame, you take that decision into your own hand,
with the intention of getting on of the popularity that the other creator had worked for
instead of using your own ideas to try and get your own popularity from your own work.
Yes and no - and it has nothing directly to do with "lenient".Though here's a quick question for y'all. If I made an original game of sorts where it has original characters, settings, music, and such but adds crossover characters from other series or characters based from other series with alternatives does that count as "fan-gaming" or something else? Is that more "lenient" to have?
This sort of thing came up a few years (give or take) ago. The issue was that a certain website was using content without permission from the copyright holder, and there excuse was that they couldn't get in contact with the owner. That site no longer exists. Care to guess why?Any what if you cannot get a hold of the owner/original creator of the IP you're trying to make a fan-game of?
That concept is often called "abandonware" and used as an excuse to distribute very old games.Any what if you cannot get a hold of the owner/original creator of the IP you're trying to make a fan-game of?
There's just TWO simple rules you should always follow when considering making a fan-game or otherwise using someone else's IP:I see... very tricky. I want to make a well-made fan-game, but not if it gets me in trouble.
Though my first fan-game I like to make is a Touhou one so I don't think I'll get as much trouble with that one unless ZUN doesn't want fan creations anymore or someone manages to grab ZUN's series which I doubt will happen. Kinda shrewd with these laws, nothing to do about it. I want to make fan-games for fun though, not profit. Kinda sucks.
Unless it's like with Capcom having given permission or bless to use someone's fan-game in their own media source like that Megaman X Street Fighter fan-game a while back.
i literally made an acc just to tell you on what an excellent post you did. well done, great job.No, that's an original definition - one I do not accept at that.
The Star Wars Extended Universe is fan-fiction regardless
of whether it is tolerated and blessed by Lucas himself - as long as it is
not being made with his supervision, not distributed by him or his company, and is not accepted
as canon, then it is fan-fiction.
I don't see why games should be held to a different standard,
and how doing so wouldn't be special pleading.
If I make a Metal Gear fan-game, and Kojima productions says "Hey, go ahead, why not?" but
remain completely detached from the game, to say that it's an" official Metal Gear game" is absurd.
And, what you're doing here is defining a problem into existence. It's a tautology.
"Fan-games are illegal because I define Fan-games as illegal".
That's a pointless way of looking at it, when there exists plenty of fan-art out there in the world
that is allowed for and accepted by artists without affiliations or endorsements.
They did. It's called copyright violations and illegal file-sharing among other things.
The only time "theft" is brought up, is in the inane public service announcement trailers on
movies, and by people who parrot that to justify their morally black and white outraged perspective
on piracy due to their emotional investment in the issue.
Also, unless you've got the magical argument that ended the centuries long debate on whether morality is
subjective or objective, or even a thing at all, I would say you got this backwards -
The only thing that really matters here is whether it's illegal or not.
It's a valid defense when major corporation tries to go after breaches on copyright with the same
vigor you'd usually reserve for people who've robbed others at gun-point in the street.
Piracy not being theft does not change what it is - illegal breach on copyright laws.
Saying "it's not theft" is not a valid defense for that. Saying "it's theft" though, grossly
distorts what's actually going on, and puts people on the spot for having done something that often
has had no real effect on the market, nor on the individual artists who made the products that were
pirated - and in some instances, even lead to increased profits.
And, as I've already said -
We already have better terms and they're already in use. As I said - the legal system does not
refer to copyright infringement or illegal file-sharing as "theft". Only the companies, and the
people who support them do.
This discussion, to my mind, is to put everyone at the same page - so people stop conflating
one crime with another, and form their opinions on the issue based on that conflation rather than
on the distinct nature of each crime.
I'm sure there are many callous individuals out there who don't care about copyrights and break
them for a profit. Whether they hide behind debates like this, I am less certain -
and it shouldn't be relevant in either case.
Truth is truth, inconvenient or not. Beliefs, true or false, can be used to justify bad behavior.
Saying that we should sweep facts under the rug because they might be abused by bad people strikes
me as an extremely problematic position to hold.
Which is illegal, and should be pursued through the justice system.
The laws and the mechanism of them should however aspire to be able to distinguish between
individual cases, and treat them differently.
Most of the copyright laws pushed for by big corporations such as in the aftermath of Napster etc.
have nothing to do with this though.
That these laws might be used to protect certain artists from abuse does not change the fact that the
laws were not primarily designed to do this, but to protect major businesses profit margins that
were themselves founded on unethical business practices abusing those very same artists.
And you have to live with the fact that this crime, can in the eyes of the law, with the correct
forces pushing for it, treat 13 year old Thomas who downloaded a couple of Beyonce albums the exact
same way as the abusive "art thief", whilst also tying into a vast network of other laws conspiring
to keep intellectual properties of individual artists in the hands of the distribution/publishing
companies they work for, whilst siphoning the vast majority of the profit of those intellectual properties
into the hands of people who did little to nothing to attribute to the production of them
in the first place.
This isn't semantics though - It's me calling out a an extremely naive, ignorant and judgmental attitude
based on people having been duped by a semantics (which was started by the music/movie industries).
I am not defending the crime of "art theft" here - I am pointing out the absurdity of creating a set
of laws that can end up treating the kind of crime you describe here the same way it would treat
a victimless crime like a fan-game, fan-movie, fan-fiction or remix from dead franchises
that have been co-opted by the distribution/publishing companies, taken completely out of the hands
of the artists that originally made them to begin with, and who won't see a penny from the source
regardless of whether it is copied and redistributed by hackers/pirates or not.
Do you really not see how ridiculous it is to hold a hostile and judgmental black/white attitude
on the issue of piracy in light of what I've just said? Simple because we can point to the occasional
indie-artist that is hurt by piracy?
Despite the fact that I am not arguing that piracy laws shouldn't exist, nor arguing that it's okay?
And again, that usually has very little to do with the artists, and almost always everything to do
with the publishers, share-holders and economical backers of large corporate structures.
I wouldn't give 2 dongles about whether or not my game spawned a fan-game that contained stuff
that I personally would be uncomfortable with, because I know that guilt by association is a fallacy -
a fallacy I'll be quick and brutal about calling out - and I recognizing that one product does
not in any way change or hamper the nature of another.
Like most people like to say when talking about the FF7 Remake - There is nothing this game can do
to take away from or spoil the original.
More on point though - This paragraph is irrelevant - because fan-games shouldn't be made
to begin with unless the person has the permission of the original IP holder, and I think it's safe to
assume that of the original IP holder green-lights the fan-project, that this isn't an issue.
And that's where you're just wrong. That's not why most of these laws were made. They were
made so the publishing companies that have assumed most of the rights to the IP, and the profits
derived thereof, can protect their future stream of income whilst also protecting
their power-house and continued ability to keep abusing the artists for profit.
Sometimes, as a side-effect, these laws benefit indie-artists, but more often than not, they don't -
because the artists who have publishing companies to pursue these offenses for them,
have gained that at the cost of having given up most of the IP rights to their creations.
It's an inherently abusive system, that punishes the little guy, and often the little irrelevant
pirates, whilst not doing nearly enough to address the real problems with piracy, such as the
one you raised in your example. Suing people for copy-right violation is a costly and time-consuming
thing to do.
How many deviant art users who've been ripped off do you supposed has successfully
carried out a lawsuit against the offending party?
And there you go with the presuppositions again.
No, you could be making a fan-game that you attained permission to make. And even if you didn't,
you could be making a fan-game of a franchise that no longer turns a profit, nor ever will,
especially for the artists that actually made it in the first place (rather than
the publishing company).
As I said - it's perfectly possible to make a fan-game for altruistic reasons in light of that.
So without further ado I present you with this
Which is for sale here
I think this makes my case perfectly.