Are Atari Games Still Copyright Protected?

[bluejay]

I'm planning on making something Adventure-related(I think I probably won't sell it though-but just in case) and that got me wondering whether Atari games were still copyright protected. Are they?

[famicommander]

Yes. Not always zealously guarded, but every commercial video game is still copyrighted unless its owners have specifically released them.

[CapitanClassic]

Anything after Jan 1, 1968 is 70+ years.

https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html

 

Adventure would enter public domain sometime after 2040. (Not sure if this qualifies as a work for hire (95 years, 2065)

 

Edited September 13, 2019 by CapitanClassic

[ubersaurus]

Adventure is public domain in 2075, as I understand it. More likely Atari wouldn’t come after you for some homebrew thing but you would have to follow any c&d they send out.

[+TwentySixHundred]

If it's not the original code/ROM and the name isn't the same then they really can't do much about concept design. Most unlicensed remakes, clones and designs usually have a different name usually prevents any copyright infringement laws.

[The Usotsuki]

Thought it was up to death+95 / 120 for corporate by now.

[PlaysWithWolves]

1 hour ago, The Usotsuki said:

Thought it was up to death+95 / 120 for corporate by now.

 

The actual formula is Current Year - Steamboat Willie + 50.

 

I'm all for hard work and creativity being awarded, but we don't live in bubbles away from other influences.  Disney became famous largely because of their animations of public domain stories.  Even the popular Frozen was loosely based on Hans Christian Andersen's The Snow Queen.  Atari's Adventure was lifted from tales other people told or wrote.  Everything is a remix.
 

 

 

I will always maintain our society is hurt--not helped--by insane copyright laws.  

[PlaysWithWolves]

<deleted D'oh, wrong thread.>

[fiddlepaddle]

Some IP owners may have given permission for anyone to copy; others may put their work in the public domain. There also may be a few cases on the margin where a work was copyrighted in a country that no longer exists.

You also may possibly get written permission to use any work from the copyright holder, especially if the use is for charity or other good cause.

Good luck identifying every games legal situation... there may be someplace that attempts to document it all (but I don't know where).

[jhd]

On 9/13/2019 at 3:08 PM, fiddlepaddle said:

 There also may be a few cases on the margin where a work was copyrighted in a country that no longer exists.

 

Do you, by chance, have any examples? The only possible example that comes to mind (at least since the end of the First World War) is Biafra -- but it is not clear that the government there was ever sufficiently established to enact copyright legislation. 

 

I suppose that there is also Czechoslovakia, though presumably copyrights registered before 1993 would be recognized by the successor state(s). Interestingly, Slovakia is a signatory to the Berne Convention, but the Czech Republic is apparently not. 

[fiddlepaddle]

No, I am no authority on the subject; I just saw mention of it a few years ago.

[Inky]

On 9/13/2019 at 4:08 PM, fiddlepaddle said:

Some IP owners may have given permission for anyone to copy; others may put their work in the public domain. 

I recall Jim Davis gave permission for the rom for the 2600 Garfield game prototype to be put in the public domain.  

Edited September 18, 2019 by Inky

[+DrVenkman]

On 9/18/2019 at 8:30 AM, Inky said:

I recall Jim Davis gave permission for the rom for the 2600 Garfield game prototype to be put in the public domain.  

Not quite; he gave permission for the completed binary to be distributed provided it is ONLY done so with a proper written notice (which is why, for instance, the file GARFIELD.TXT is included in ROM Hunter’s collection of 2600 binaries on Atarimania). I don’t think this permission includes the right to disassemble or otherwise take apart the code and use it as the basis for anything new or different. 

[The Usotsuki]

A lot of people mistake "freeware" for "public domain" ... you can still infringe copyright on freeware!

[Video]

Copyright is a LOT more complicated than just "you own it for X years" and even that bit isn't very well understood. Ever wonder why, for instance, every generation of consoles gets those game collections? It's due to copyright. You have to use it, or you lose it, so you see activision, atari, sega, nintendo, etc, collections and rereleases every generation so those people keep them running. If it sits for long enough, and I believe it's only 20ish years (maybe less) it'll basically become public domain.

 

copyright is and was never intended to give anybody exclusivity to their thing indefinitely. It was intended to protect them from someone stealing their actively in use work and reducing their potential profit.

[RevEng]

Trademarks are "use it or lose it". Copyright doesn't require that you use the work in any commercial way at all. You can literally lock an artistic work in a vault the day you create it, and it's still covered by copyright. (proof might be difficult, but it's still covered by copyright)

[Swami]

On 9/21/2019 at 8:57 AM, DrVenkman said:

Not quite; he gave permission for the completed binary to be distributed provided it is ONLY done so with a proper written notice (which is why, for instance, the file GARFIELD.TXT is included in ROM Hunter’s collection of 2600 binaries on Atarimania). I don’t think this permission includes the right to disassemble or otherwise take apart the code and use it as the basis for anything new or different. 

I thought if it is different code and different name (like K.C. Munchkin clones) is is legally acceptable. I think only good faith would support that contingency.

[+DrVenkman]

8 hours ago, Swami said:

I thought if it is different code and different name (like K.C. Munchkin clones) is is legally acceptable. I think only good faith would support that contingency.

First, keep in mind I was specifically discussing the situation with Garfield, not any other game. It’s been awhile since I read the text file included with the Garfield rom so I can’t say for sure what is specifically allowed.  Second, I’m also not technically capable of disassembling any 2600 roms and reusing or reworking any of the existing code so it will never affect me personally. ?

[jhd]

On 9/27/2019 at 9:48 PM, RevEng said:

Copyright doesn't require that you use the work in any commercial way at all. You can literally lock an artistic work in a vault the day you create it, and it's still covered by copyright. (proof might be difficult, but it's still covered by copyright)

 

Actually, that is the best way to secure your copyright. If nobody has physical access to the creative work (or are even aware of its existence), it cannot be reproduced in any way. 

 

 

[H.E.R.O.]

There's stuff like Indenture and Adventure II out there so I doubt whomever owns it is looking to enforce but you never know. When Nintendo gets its gander up they start suing people with the name Mario. j/k

[+Cafeman]

On 9/30/2019 at 5:02 PM, H.E.R.O. said:

There's stuff like Indenture and Adventure II out there so I doubt whomever owns it is looking to enforce but you never know. When Nintendo gets its gander up they start suing people with the name Mario. j/k

Atari Corp certainly did have something to say about Adventure II back around 2005.  Their General Counsel herself was involved at that time. They gave me, and AA, a fair trade typed of provision in the end, but with strict stipulations.  So, although Atari may be different ownership now (?) , they certainly are watching if you try to sell a product with their IP.