Are incomplete prototypes covered by copyright restrictions?

[captainblack]

Hey friends, I was just wondering what the situation is with these unfinished prototypes that pop up and circulate on the internet. They get hosted on encyclopedia style websites which gives me the impression they're not in the same category as a file for a commercially released game. I could be wrong though so I thought Id ask before talking openly about where to find them and such. 

[DavidD]

7 hours ago, captainblack said:

Hey friends, I was just wondering what the situation is with these unfinished prototypes that pop up and circulate on the internet. They get hosted on encyclopedia style websites which gives me the impression they're not in the same category as a file for a commercially released game. I could be wrong though so I thought Id ask before talking openly about where to find them and such. 

Copyright is automatic in the USA, regardless of publishing/release status... so, yes, they are just as illegal as, say, all other game downloads.

[+Stephen Moss]

They are covered by normal Copyright law, which essentially gives the author of any original work the Copyright to that work once the work is started.

As I recall there is no distinction between Complete and unfinished/works in progress, otherwise someone could plagiarise your work and get a copy out ahead of you if the laws only applied to finished/commercially released items.

 

The question then becomes one of how did it appear on the internet?

If it was initially uploaded without the copyright holders permission that and any subsequent distribution would be illegal.

 

If the copyright holder uploaded it for people to try/keep free of charge then they still retain Copyright to the work, if they specified either at time they made it available or subsequently that others may not host/otherwise distribute copies then doing so would be an issue.

Otherwise, I don't think there is an issue with another party hosting/distributing copies (provided it is a verbatim copy and not modified/repackaged in any way or charging for something that was initially released without a fee) where the author has not indicate any prohibition to doing so as they can claim they were unaware of any such prohibition, although it is always polite to ask the copyright holders permission before doing so in order to be certain it is permitted rather than to assume it is.

 

The above is different to the author releasing it a Public Domain (PD), if the author openly declares it to be PD then they are relinquishing any Copyright they have in regard to the work and so anyone can then do as they wish with it, if no PD declaration is made by the author then they retain the Copyright to the work in question until the expiration of the legal set Copyright period.

[captainblack]

Thanks for the info guys, I suppose that makes sense.

[+jgkspsx]

Some prototypes, like Phase Zero, are sold under license.

[jhd]

Another complicating factor is who owns the copyright.

 

If a programmer is paid for his (or her or its) work then the copyright normally belongs to the employer. So, even if the original programmer wishes to make their own available, he/she/it may not have the right to do so. This is an especially complex issue where firms have merged and/or dissolved in the intervening years. Somebody still owns the copyright, but it may be difficult to establish who that is.

 

For example, I have several CDRs worth of content that I created while working for a former employer. I left that job almost twenty years ago, and the organization that I once worked for no longer exists. In practice, nobody is going to care (much less sue me) if I were to release the material online -- but technically I would be in breach of copyright by doing so.

 

(In case anyone cares, the project that I worked on was developing a database of citations to academic articles on law reform. It is even more boring than it sounds.) 

[phoboz]

1 hour ago, jhd said:

but technically I would be in breach of copyright by doing so

I guess someone would only be interested to sue you if they think that they are loosing out on making more money on the product than it would cost to initiate such legal process.

[Pete5125]

That or potential money. In the early days of the internet fox sued everyone for fan pages, even though they were essentially free advertisements, with no profit being made from the website.

 

But,if fox wouldn't of set the president of filing lawsuits. At some point it could be considered fair use.