Adventure Reboot taken down

[Byte Knight]

Hi guys,

 

Don't know if you already saw this, but the modern Adventure remake Adventure Reboot has apparently been taken down by Atari:

 

http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=74813&page=24

 

Why would they do this? It's not like they're going to make another version!

[Zwackery]

Hi guys,

 

Don't know if you already saw this, but the modern Adventure remake Adventure Reboot has apparently been taken down by Atari:

 

http://forums.penny-...t=74813&page=24

 

Why would they do this? It's not like they're going to make another version!

Maybe not, but you don't know that, and Atari (whatever the company is now) is protecting its intellectual property rights as Adventure is a title that still generates money (in its various guises on Atari compilations). Our resident lawyer-in-training could no doubt speak more eloquently about this.

[4ever2600]

I don't if anyone from here created this remake, but I must say, I'm so happy that I downloaded this game when I did! I love this game and I play the hell out of it! Of course it's Atari's IP so they can do as they wish. But why doesn't this person just rename it to something OTHER than Atari's Adventure Reborn. Call it Knight's quest or something TOTALLY unrelated. For something that is just a fan project, I really am surprised they even bothered.

[yuppicide]

I never saw this, but would like to play. They should just shorten the name to "Reboot".

[Cebus Capucinis]

Yep! Zwackery hit the nail right on the head. Atari still makes money from Adventure through compilation discs and the Flashback machines. They can still prove they could potentially get physical losses from a little Flash game. They could also claim it is devaluing their brand -- the nicer graphics on "Reboot" makes one not want to play the version in the compilations, and therefore Atari loses out on some market share.

 

Atari has a vested interest in that, which is why that title specifically gets "picked on" -- they still produce it!

[Albert]

Can someone check to see if Atari still even has a trademark on "Adventure"? Did they ever have said trademark? There may be no merit for their action at all.

 

..Al

[Cebus Capucinis]

The label for the Adventure cartridge does have a copyright notice on it, and the copyright will not have expired. Label, Program & Audiovisual copyright 1978 Atari, Inc. It's got the notice on it, and it exists in a tangible form, so it's copyrighted. Atari would be well within their means, IMO.

[Albert]

The label for the Adventure cartridge does have a copyright notice on it, and the copyright will not have expired. Label, Program & Audiovisual copyright 1978 Atari, Inc. It's got the notice on it, and it exists in a tangible form, so it's copyrighted.

Did they use the label artwork? If they did, then obviously they'd want to remove that from their page (which I see they have completely taken down).

 

That doesn't answer my other question, though..

 

..Al

[Byte Knight]

Yep! Zwackery hit the nail right on the head. Atari still makes money from Adventure through compilation discs and the Flashback machines. They can still prove they could potentially get physical losses from a little Flash game. They could also claim it is devaluing their brand -- the nicer graphics on "Reboot" makes one not want to play the version in the compilations, and therefore Atari loses out on some market share.

 

Atari has a vested interest in that, which is why that title specifically gets "picked on" -- they still produce it!

 

So why not go after Adventure II for the 5200? That's being sold whereas Adventure Reboot was free. I suppose one reason is that the audience is much smaller for the 5200 than the computer market...

[Cebus Capucinis]

If the game is similar enough to warrant a direct connection between it and Atari's previously copyrighted "Adventure" (which I would assume being "Adventure Reboot" it does) then it is liable for infringement upon the copyright Atari had in 1978. It all depends on how similar it was. What was the game like? "Program" and "Audiovisual" would be the big nails in the coffin for this one; if their version of Adventure is Atari's version of Adventure but with spiffied up graphics, it still infringes upon the program in enough of a manner.

 

Beats me, to be honest, I never actually tried Adventure Reboot!

 

After reading the thread it sounds like they had used the Adventure concept to make a new iteration of the game. No dice on that one if it's still similar enough in concept to the game, I'd assume. Though it was a C & D which leads me to think there's no case there....

[Albert]

If the game is similar enough to warrant a direct connection between it and Atari's previously copyrighted "Adventure" (which I would assume being "Adventure Reboot" it does) then it is liable for infringement upon the copyright Atari had in 1978. It all depends on how similar it was. What was the game like? "Program" and "Audiovisual" would be the big nails in the coffin for this one; if their version of Adventure is Atari's version of Adventure but with spiffied up graphics, it still infringes upon the program in enough of a manner.

I do not with this at all. "Program" is the actual binary code. "Audiovisual" would be the graphics and sound. You cannot copyright a game concept, or a movie plot, and so forth.

 

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

 

"Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it."

 

If they changed all the graphics and sound and didn't use the original label artwork, they should be in the clear.

 

..Al

[Cebus Capucinis]

That's why I asked what the game was like. Without seeing it I couldn't make any sort of call on what they would be pursuing by C & Ding it. I honestly agree, if all they did was a reboot without anything copied, there's no justification for it at all.

 

As per your trademark question I can't find anything online linking to it, but I still believe that they can generally claim that their brand is being devalued in some way.

 

At any rate this is my last post in this thread.

[Albert]

That's why I asked what the game was like. Without seeing it I couldn't make any sort of call on what they would be pursuing by C & Ding it. I honestly agree, if all they did was a reboot without anything copied, there's no justification for it at all.

There are plenty of screenshots and the graphics are completely different (and much nicer). Someone familiar with Adventure would probably see the resemblance, but good luck successfully suing someone over that. I wonder if this has been hashed over in the really long Penny Arcade thread (which I'm too tired to sift through right now).

 

..Al

[Albert]

As per your trademark question I can't find anything online linking to it, but I still believe that they can generally claim that their brand is being devalued in some way.

Well, Atari can claim anything they want, but if the Reboot team aren't using an Atari trademark, aren't infringing on their program code and aren't using any graphics or audio from the original game, this looks like Atari using the legal system as a form of harassment.

 

..Al

[Lauren Tyler]

So that means I'll never be able to try it? Dammit!

[Albert]

So that means I'll never be able to try it? Dammit!

I didn't get a chance to try it out either.

 

..Al

[Retro Rogue]

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

 

"Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it."

 

That's describing physical board games, that's not a video game copyright page. That's why it's describing physical three dimensional elements and the like.

 

If they changed all the graphics and sound and didn't use the original label artwork, they should be in the clear.

 

..Al

 

 

Besides the fact the game was literally going out of it's way to be tied to Atari and it's Adventure property (both in the name "Adventure 2600 Reboot", game origin, game design, and overall intent), the legal precedents for Atari's position are also pretty clear with landmark cases such as Atari vs. Phillips which this situation would be a mirror of (similar game with altered graphics and gameplay).

 

It would be very different if William Stiernberg and his team instead did an "inspired by" game, didn't try and reuse the name in the context of Atari's 2600 game, didn't try and portray it as a literal remake, and didn't tie it to the value of Atari's current and still exercised property, etc. In fact, William could have gone to the same route Atari Inc. originally did when they created Adventure by doing a game "inspired" by the mainframe Colossal Cave Adventure game. The name "Adventure" is not copyrightable, and in fact Atari's original title trademark was for "Atari Adventure".

 

For example, look what ID did with the Castle Wolfenstein property when they released Wolfenstein 3D as an "inspired by" game.

 

This is the first I had heard of this remake, but looking at all the information, I think it's unfair to paint Atari as a harasser and bully here. William and company hung themselves from the get go.

Edited February 14, 2010 by wgungfu

[Retro Rogue]

So why not go after Adventure II for the 5200? That's being sold whereas Adventure Reboot was free. I suppose one reason is that the audience is much smaller for the 5200 than the computer market...

 

No, it's because as the author's site states: "name used with permission from Atari Corp. for Atari 5200 and Atari 8bit computers". They initially went after Ron (and other homebrewers) and he temporarily changed the name. Thanks to Curt getting involved, he was able to create a working relationship between Ron and Atari, who wound up giving him guidelines (on content, etc.) that he had to follow for his version. In return, we were able to create a "version" of Adventure II (under Ron's guidance) when we did the Flashback 2 for Atari. Per Ron's own words in an interview:

 

"Infogrames purchased the Atari properties and in 2004, as the new "Atari", they had issues with homebrewers using their purchased intellectual properties. On the one hand, I understand the legality of registered trademarks and owned intellectual properties. That is why I didn't name the dragons in Adventure II "Yorgle" and so forth. Of course, nobody can claim ownership on the word "adventure" or the adventure style of game. Still, we are clearly making an homage to the Atari 2600 game, Adventure. I don't know if Warren Robinette would recall this, but back in 2001 or so, I emailed him to basically get his 'blessing' on our project. I was happy to read his response that he views it as an homage and he was fine with it. Still, I respected the new Atari's wishes and temporarily changed the name to the wonderfully creative title, "Quest for the Golden Chalice". Thanks to Curt Vendel's efforts, however, the lawyers agreed to let me keep the title. In 'fair trade' exchange, I assisted Curt's team in the development of an Atari Flashback 2 version of Adventure II (which is Atari 2600 hardware). "Atari" still dictated some ground rules that I had to agree to, which affected a few ideas I had. Hey, it's water under the bridge, let's all just move on!"

Edited February 14, 2010 by wgungfu

[Curt Vendel]

Adventure II was given permission from Atari, Albert and Cafeman went the proper route and got permission for its use in exchange to giving me the maps to 5200 Adv II so I could create the 2600 scaled down Adv II version that is included in FB2 and Fb2+

 

Atari is moving heavily into use of its Classic IP portfolio, I warned everyone 6 months ago about this and that they are going to start enforcing their rights as they themselves are working on releases, re-releases and updates to their IP assets.

 

Curt

 

 

Yep! Zwackery hit the nail right on the head. Atari still makes money from Adventure through compilation discs and the Flashback machines. They can still prove they could potentially get physical losses from a little Flash game. They could also claim it is devaluing their brand -- the nicer graphics on "Reboot" makes one not want to play the version in the compilations, and therefore Atari loses out on some market share.

 

Atari has a vested interest in that, which is why that title specifically gets "picked on" -- they still produce it!

 

So why not go after Adventure II for the 5200? That's being sold whereas Adventure Reboot was free. I suppose one reason is that the audience is much smaller for the 5200 than the computer market...

[Curt Vendel]

All the Reboot guys need to do is come up with their own unique title - Look how many Space Invader clones were made by companies in the 80's which all more or less were the same look & gameplay as Space Invaders, yet they got a pass from Taito. Pac Man on the other hand - look at how Atari went after KC Munchkin and won on that one.

 

Its interesting that there are more direct blatant ripoffs of Pac Man all over the Internet that say Pac Man and are exactly the same as the arcade, yet Namco does nothing to uphold their rights to the game.

 

 

 

Curt

 

As per your trademark question I can't find anything online linking to it, but I still believe that they can generally claim that their brand is being devalued in some way.

Well, Atari can claim anything they want, but if the Reboot team aren't using an Atari trademark, aren't infringing on their program code and aren't using any graphics or audio from the original game, this looks like Atari using the legal system as a form of harassment.

 

..Al

[tremoloman2006]

I found a working link for Adventure 2600 Reboot!

 

Download it quick before it gets smoked:

Adventure 2600 Reboot, Version 1.0, Windows Installer (.zip)

 

Enjoy!

[+HatNJ]

Sweet got it

Thanks

[RevEng]

Can someone check to see if Atari still even has a trademark on "Adventure"? Did they ever have said trademark? There may be no merit for their action at all.

 

..Al

Trademarks last forever, if the owner meets certain conditions. Additionally, trademarks don't need to be registered to be found valid.

 

There's a question of whether "Adventure" can be a valid mark. I'm inclined to say it probably isn't because it's a common word, which is one of the things you need to avoid if you want your mark to be defensible. OTOH, "Windows" and "Apple" have been upheld as valid trademarks, so it's not a clear point until a man in robes says one way or the other.

 

wgungfu's correct on the "look and feel" copyright precedent made by the Atari v. North American Phillips Consumer Electronics, though I wish it wasn't so. You can write a book about a fisherman hell-bent on hunting a white whale and be legally clear, but you can't make a game that plays nearly identically to pacman without risking stepping on the trademark. There's no logical reason for this disparity. Copyright is supposed to only apply to an implementation of an idea, not to ideas themselves.

 

Regarding the reboot's alleged copyright infringement, you can consider the level design a part of the original artistic work. In this case, the reboot would almost definitely be a derivative work.

 

As much as my heart is with the homebrewers, if Atari feels they have a valid mark with "Adventure" they need to enforce it, or else the mark becomes indefensible. The only other choice they have is licensing it, which they won't do because it will cost them time and money.

 

I suspect if the reboot changes its name, Atari will back off. IMO it's actually in their best interest that Adventure remains in the hearts and minds of the public. If they realize that, hopefully they'll conclude that defending their mark and having a homebrew that fosters love of the old game is a win-win for them.

Edited February 14, 2010 by RevEng

[tetrode kink]

Thus Spake Zarathustra.

[homerwannabee]

OK, remember this with copyrights. If a copyright is not renewed within 29 years time it becomes public domain. Since they started doing this 6 months ago Atari is going to have a problem. Any game before Space Invaders is not enforceable in regards to copyrights. 1980+29=2009.

Edit never mind I am confused with works prior to 1964. Anything after that does not need to be renewed. My bad.

 

They may have a case with trademarks but nothing with copyrights. Just a thought.